I see Obama as having a particular strategic advantage over Clinton so far: positive campaigning.

[LoZoccolo]

There has been some analysis comparing Hillary Clinton's positions on issues to Barack Obama's that have found that they are pretty much the same policy-wise, and I started having an intuitive sense of that not long ago. I would be happy voting for either of them in November.

The point at which I think they differentiate more significantly is in their approach to campaigning. This is an oversimplification, but I think Hillary Clinton's emphasis has been on fighting and Barack Obama's has been on enticing. I think Clinton's critics will point to this as evidence that she comes with a lot of baggage, but she's dealt with these things surprisingly well.

I'm not sure what will happen this election season, which approach will prove more useful when squared off against the Republicans' strategy. But I will say this: giving more attention to the fights between the Republican and Democratic candidate is more likely to allow Republicans to pick some of the battlegrounds by picking some of the fights. When John Kerry was being attacked one some issues (this was before the Swift Boat ads, but may have been after some minor rumblings by them; I can't remember) during the 2004 campaign, a paid staffer explained to me that responding to those attacks starts to define the campaign in terms of the subject of those attacks; the Republicans can pick your emphasis for you by picking particular fights with you.

People might think of the Swift Boat Veterans when they think of this phenomenon, and they might feel that when Kerry ignored them he suffered a loss, but I actually don't think the Swift Boat Veterans were successful. I've read analysis that found that the group that switched from Kerry to Bush* during that time was mothers, and the switch coincided more with the Beslan school hostage crisis than the appearance of the Swift Boat Veterans. I could try to dig it up if anyone's really interested.

The strategies can change between now and November, or even between now and the super-primary next month, but as it stands now, I have the impression that Clinton's emphasis on deflecting attacks might allow the Republicans to control the debate in the general election, and would count that as a disadvantage in comparison to Obama.

[Bonobo]

1. Yeah, but which is a pumpkin fucker?

[LoZoccolo]

2. I think that we are all pumpkin fuckers to some degree.

Every attack in the primary has the potential to become a Republican attack later. But it is worse if you are attacking along lines that mostly only Republicans care about.

[still_one]

The advantage is this, it reality back to earth, so he can focus on the issues

and why his vision is so much better than hers, which is nothing more than what we have been experiencing the last 8 years

Remember her wonderful trip to Iraq with mccain?

Remember her vote on the Kyle/Lieberman amendment

Remember her vote on the IWR

give me ANY Democratic candidate but Hillary

[jasmine621]

3. I think Obama's campaign has been more on the attack but given a pass

by the press. This is a campaign. The candidates are supposed to be able to at leasst hightlight differences in their positions on the issues. It's not an attack to site your opponent's record and actions as long as it is accurate.

When is an attack not an attack?
When it's against Hillary...by anyone.

When is statement of fact an attack?
When it is made by Hillary against anyone.

[papau]

4. So because Obama doesn't do "deflecting attacks " he is better in the general than Hillary?

Obama's political history has him down and dirty in the past, so I suspect he will do just fine "deflecting attacks" - and if I thought he would not do well "deflecting attacks" I would worry more about a general election with Obama as the Dem.

[TwilightZone]

5. When did you switch from Hillary to Obama?

I could swear that you were supporting Hillary before. But, I digress....

As to your post, I'm not sure I agree with your assertions. In the first few debates, Hillary was pretty much the only one *not* attacking her opponents. It wasn't until her front-runner status was in question that she began to target someone other than Bush and Cheney.

The others, however, have generally been targeting her pretty much since the beginning, largely because she was the front-runner for much of the campaign. Edwards and Obama haven't always played nice with each other, either, so your assertions seem a little, shall we say, biased toward your candidate.

That's generally how DU works, of course, and "negative" is up for debate. For most on DU, "negative" generally means "anything my candidate's opponents say", while "positive" means "every word my candidate says".

From my perspective, pretty much everyone is guilty of negative campaigning, at least among the Big Three. Calling your opponent "Bush-lite", for example, isn't terribly positive, in my opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

6. You and everyone else who thinks I supported Hillary Clinton, probably thought so because I dared...

...to defend a fellow Democrat against spurious and disingenuous attacks in the interest of making the intellectual climate less insane and inflammatory so that we could choose the best candidate to run in the presidential election, even if that candidate was not my first choice. I went out on a limb and had respect for peoples' intelligence and their ability to make choices without being mendaciously manipulated.

[TwilightZone]

7. I didn't mean it as a criticism. I've been defending Hillary for months, yet I'm still undecided.

I applaud the fact that you have defended Democrats and not just your chosen candidate. I sincerely wish that there were more people like you on DU. Obviously, you did such a good job that everyone incorrectly assumed that you supported her. I apologize for making that assumption.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I apologize as well.

I was getting hit by someone else yesterday. :hug:

[TwilightZone]

10. No problem. It's often really difficult to tell the sarcasm from the sincerity around here!

:toast:

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Obama's announcement in the NYT that he was going negative was how long ago?

Distant past, according to Obama short term memory deficit disorder Nation...