Hillary & Bill Suckered Obama & Edwards Into Petty Fights Making Their Negatives Closer to Hers.

1.) What was Hillary Clinton's biggest political problem just six months ago? Her high negative ratings in every poll with the American people.

2.) And six months ago, what did poll after poll reveal about what the public thought about John Edwards? People liked him and his boyish, optimistic charm.

3.) And what was Barack Obama's greatest attribute as perceived by the American people? Obama was not "old politics" and he was upbeat and gave hope.

And so what did the Clintons cleverly do? Knowing that it would take time to raise Hillary's favorability ratings with the public, they pulled out Karl Rove's oldest trick: go after your opponents strongest point. And the strongest point with both Obama and Edwards early this year was that the American people liked them. So if Hillary had mud on her, then she'd engage them and get them into the mud-pit, too.

So, the Clintons and their operatives picked little fights here and there with both Obama and Edwards. They tossed the bait and both Obama and Edwards went for it. Before you know it, Obama and Edwards were reacting to snide comments from both Bill and Hillary. Obama and Edwards suddenly were slinging the mud right back and guess what? Poof! Their perception with voters began to change. Their "favorability" luster was squandered. And they began to have higher negatives, too.

Whoever in the campaigns of Obama and Edwards let them get sucked into the daily tit-for-tat with the Clintons did them a great disservice. By advising Obama and Edwards to hit back at Hillary, they sullied their brands in the market.

The greatest advantage that Obama and Edwards had was that people liked them. Obama had crowds of over 10,000 people showing up in snowfall in the north and in rainfall in Texas. Hillary's "crowds" could all be housed within any local coffee shop. Bill Clinton knew what had to be done. Pick a fight, get their danders up, get their campaign staffs up in arms, and most of all...get their negatives up like hers.

It worked, didn't it? In just six months, too.

Is it too late? Can the mudslinging memories be erased? Probably not. But...

My advice to Barack Obama and John Edwards is simple and comes straight from the old Beatle song: Get Back! Get back to who you were when you launched your campaigns. Tell Democrats why they should vote FOR you, not why they should vote against Hillary. Get Back to your optimistic messages of hope and a better future.

Senator Obama: You don't need to tell the core primary voters in the Democratic Party that Hillary voted for the war and you opposed it. Primary voters already knew that. That was a given. Get Back to where you want to lead America. And the same goes for Edwards.

Whichever of the two of them Gets Back to being positive again will be the one to have the best, last chance to beat Hillary now.

Get Back.

"So, the Clintons and their operatives picked little fights here and there with both Obama and Edwards. They tossed the bait and both Obama and Edwards went for it."

Seems to me that it would be most important for you to include some general details on "the little fights" and "the Bait" that you are refering to, no? :shrug:

The vagueness and/or absense of supporting facts to back your op is killing me!

They're making it up as they go along...It's called talking out of your...well, you get the picture.

if nothing that would kinda of fill those huge holes in the OP written materialize, I'll have no other choice but to conclude that there was no there there. :shrug:

Ps. I very much respect this poster, and so I asked, and so I wait.

"Barack is naive" "Barack will be used for propaganda purposes by America's enemies" Barack bit the bait days later by overcompensating saying he'd practically invade Pakistan. Elizabeth Edwards bit the bait and dragged John's "positives" down by biting back at the Clintons time and again. Too much over the last six months, but neither of them (and both were way up in the polls) needed to get comparative with her. She needed it, not them.

What happened to the favorability ratings of Obama and Edwards? Where did it all go? They gave up their greatest asset and didn't need to.

And now that she's on top, you won't see her picking fights or responding to them much anymore. Hillary's up and the only one she will criticize now will be George W. Bush. That's smart.

That's why she's the one who will beat the GOP in 2008.

"Barack bit the bait days later by overcompensating saying he'd practically invade Pakistan."
and

"Elizabeth Edwards bit the bait and dragged John's "positives" down by biting back at the Clintons time and again."

Simply sounds like those campaigns stepped into it, without even being asked. :shrug:


If the primaries are a test run (and that's how I look at it to a great degree), than it appears that you have just highlighted why Hillary may be, after everything is said and done, the strongest candidate for the Democrats to stand up and bring us back the White House.

Democrats are looking for a winner afterall, not a whinner. :)

Because she has run a "flawless" campaign (that was me).

Obama and Edwards have both run pretty weak campaigns and, while HIllary has her faults, screwing up campaigns isn't one of them.

I will invest in the candidate that knows how to beat the GOP...that's Hillary.

If Obama and Edwards want to regain any of their former leads, they should cut out attacking Hillary and show why they are better by going back to their more optimistic appeal.

:sarcasm:

Which is why she is about to walk away with a sweep of the primaries and why she will defeat any Republican in 2008. They are good at what they do.

all that is left is her coronation on January 20, 2009. Maybe Obama and Edwards can get appointments to her Royal Queen's Court; heard the Jester job is still available.

So which one is the boogeyman in your closet? Bill or Hill? Or do they both jump out at you together?

In eight years of harassment and calumny, I never heard Bill Clinton say a mean word about anybody. Still haven't. Any strategist worth spit might have guessed that would continue.

I think as much as politicians WANT to control the message, some issues just walk on legs of their own.

with the "naive and inexperienced" and with how she stole the "change" mantle from Obama by arguing that it's not enough to want change; You need the experience to implement change.

Now that Hillary is on top, you will see the Clintons ignore Obama and Edwards...which is what they should have done.

Clinton will only be attacking George W. Bush from now on.

I know you mean this as a criticism of Hillary... but, every time I read one of these screeds about Hillary being manipulative or Machiavellian (or Rovian)... well,I know I should be appalled, and denounce such tactics, but somewhere in a corner of my mind I start imagining her using the same skills on the Repub nominee in the general election...

...and I can't help but smile at the thought. Just a little smile, but still...

Barack Obama should have stayed on message that he was the alternative to Bush now and the Republicans in 2008. He was at the top. Instead, his message became that he was the alternative to Hillary. Big mistake. He was on top.

Now that the roles are reversed, you will only hear Hillary showing herself to be the alternative to the GOP, not the other Democratic candidates.

The Clintons understand politics and which is why she will most likely now sweep the primaries and go on to beat the GOP in '08.

although I concluded as much in my response to you above.

You are correct on this.

I mean, for relishing the idea that Clinton can play this game the way it'll need to be played.

I hadn't really "picked" a candidate, but was leaning toward Edwards... until he pulled his name from our primary ballot. At first I was just mad about that, but the more I've thought about it, the more I have real concerns about him allowing himself to be "stampeded" into such a stupid move. What does that say about his ability to stand up to pressure?

Anyway, I'm leaning Clinton, now, just because of the "little smiles" that things like your OP give me.

Not my favorite, in a policy sense, but I want to win this one. We NEED to win this one if we still expect to have a country worth living in.

She's hardly the activist I would have loved to have seen as our nominee, but what you write "We NEED to win this one this one if we still expect to have a country worth living in" is why I am voting for her in the primaries. The other candidates have proven to me that they are not up to the big league. I'm going with the winner.

I can live with wicked. I can't live with 4 more years of republo-fascist rule.

God help them if they have to deal with an entire republican party on their ass in a general election.

Hillary's team has been playing them, alright but it takes more than that to be 20 to 40 points ahead. As if just being the nice boy "everyone likes" was enough to win, in what country?

The Clintons are good. We will need that in 2008. They win. They don't lose.

As soon as Hillary started to pull away they really had no choice, it's catch-22.

What is telling, though, is that her team was able to bait them into pissing matches of their own creation. It's one thing to go on the attack on your own terms it's another to be suckered into fights your opponent wants you to fight.

I have my own ideas about why Obama is falling behind, and really, they aren't anything to be ashamed of. I think he is simply too intellectual and dignified. It used to be that only local level politicians had to be Mr. Slapptyback common guy. Now, with the dumbing down of the country, the leader of the free world is supposed to be someone your average slob "wants to have a beer with". He has all the charisma in the world but it's the kind that people look up to, rather than feel equal to. And politicians have to dumb themselves down.

That was Bill Clinton's great gift. He was smarter than most of them combined but still retained his personable, common touch. He always amazed me in his ability to speak intelligently to people about complex issues without ever making them feel stupid. And Hillary, much to the surprise of many, is not an ice queen, in fact she is quite charming and personable when she wants to be. And she watched Bill all her life.

I honestly don't think someone like JFK could get elected today, people would be too intimated by him.

Edwards and Obama put themselves in that situation. HRC is to smart to do that.

By the way, RFK was our magic moment in American politics and it was taken away from us.

People don't like Clinton because she an icy politician. Obama and Edwards are doing poorly because they (and their supporters) are mudslinging just as much, if not more.

This must be all Clinton's fault. He tricked them into engaging in politics-as-usual!

Jesus, this is an even bigger stretch than most Freeper "b-b-but Clinton!" blame-shifting.

People didn't like Hillary much six months ago. Every poll proved it and it still is a problem, but they've improved on that a lot.

My point is that the Clintons are running the primary contest; in fact it's beginning to look like it could be a 50-state sweep. And that's because their political skills simply tower of their opponents. This will be a good thing for us in 2008.

Obama should have stayed above the fray when he was on top. You won't see Hillary engaging with him now that she's on top. Her focus will be on Bush and the GOP from now on. That's where Obama got sidetracked...and actually, if I had to guess, it was his aids that told him to hammer at Hillary.

the thing is, that they were both at a big disadvantage against her from the start and she doesn't make mistakes.

"they were both at a big disadvantage against her from the start and she doesn't make mistakes."

just imagine what Republicans would do to them! :sarcasm:

I hope you are not serious -- it's getting so utterly irrational around here when it comes to HC, I sometimes wonder what I am doing still being a part of it -- but then there are so many excellent posts about many, many things that it would be a pity to leave DU altogether... Can we please, please have a special HC forum which those of us who are sick and tired of it can just avoid, and those for whom it's so important to blame her for everything truly use to give it their all without the rest of us raining on their hatred parade?! That would be SUCH a relief!

Obama and Edwards had no choice to go negative, to close the gaping chasm in the polls, but they had no other choice. I don't think they were baited into it...

it's inevitable. I don't know why you blame the Clintons (and their operatives) for that, but I guess you have to blame someone. And of course, Obama and Edwards are not to blame but that evil and nefarious "whoever" who "let them get sucked into the daily tit-for-tat". Whatever.:eyes:

And you are correct that their negatives would have grown some, but the spatting that has gone on now for six months --- with the wives even getting into it cut into their "positive" perceptions...and that was their strongest suit.

I doubt if there has been a national campaign in my lifetime where there weren't "little fights" and more.

Those guys chose their roles and those roles put them in a position where ANY challenge would muddy them, so it's not exactly "going for their strong points". There was no way to avoid going for their strong points except to not challenge at all, and that would be a disservice to us all.

You made it up.

Edwards is "my guy" but his mis-steps are his own. As are Obamas. They need to draw comparisons between themselves and Hillary. Some of those have been successful and others haven't.

I think she benefits from the bad shots. But I do not believe she controls their occurrence.

But their shot with the voters will reminding them of the upbeat candidates that they were in their early days. Obama and Edwards need to fire some people and start being themselves again.

Hillary's strongest suit has not been her winsome personality. I know that a lot of people adore her, but there are also a lot of people who despise her (unfairly). She's made a lot of progress lately by showing her human side, laughing at herself.

And there is the great irony:

Hillary is getting warm and fuzzy with the voters and having a good time and her crowds are growing, while the two guys who are just sweethearts with the public have transformed into scowling policy wonks.

If voting for Hillary because I know that she won't lose to the GOP in 2008 is a "lame excuse" than so be it.

For those who smugly believe that Hillary will be no different than George W. Bush or any of the GOP running, I've already heard that lousy record played before in 2000 by the Naderites who said there would be no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

Get real. Hillary is not the activist I would love to see in the White House, but her Democratic opponents have proven to me that they are losers when it comes to running campaigns.

Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party nominate someone who can't even run a national campaign? Talk about lame.

As least Hillary won't allow herself to be suckered.

here we go again. I thought only the republicans blamed Clintons for everything

He's saying they are being smarter than the opponents. That's how I read it. The title is a little off.