It's offfical: Hillary's campaign is going negative

Mark Penn, campaign genius , thinks that their problem wasn't a suck ground game but that they just weren't http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/on-second-thoug.html">hard enough on Obama. Can't wait to see the shit start flying. Wait, the flying monkeys landed here last week. They are just getting their validation now.

It's this form of campaigning that Penn and his cohorts are known for. As I predicted.
Offer still open, Penn. I'll show you how to win. I'll even throw in a giant hint for free:
Going negative doesn't help in NH.

It wasn't because they were nice, it was because they were incompetent.

What is HRC if not the embodiment of negative forces?

They don't have the time to mount a comeback the way Clinton did because of the schedule.

:shrug:

What they mean is they're concentrating on Obama, leaving Edwards free of interference! It's all good.

And the Clinton people wonder why "change" is such an important theme this election cycle.

he cites two Clinton campaigners as providing Novak with the smear on Obama. I haven't seen anyone, anywhere prove that was true. I don't trust this blog.

There's no credibility to a campaign managers comments taken out of context. Penn said they had to focus on Obama. What did you expect him to say? Obama's the competition, it's certainly not John Edwards. Also keep in mind that Obama has been bashing Clinton just as much.

Notice how I didn't reference race or gender.

he would have been better prepared for the Swift boaters and won.

So many are going negative on Clinton and on Edwards, why should Obama be spared? Because everyone bends backwards, afraid that any negative comment on him would be labeled as "racist?"

So you're not going to criticize Barak because you're afraid of being called racist?

That's just too cute.

And then saying HRC will strengthen the process by being hostile.

And then implying that attacks on her are unfair.

You people are in the dark.

Literally.

Before August, the media and the world at large, had:

- the ability to see over 100 pages of Kerry's Naval records, including fitness reports that entirely covered the interval he was in the service. Many written by SBVT, all uniformly glowing.

- Knowledge that on the Nixon tapes, it can be heard they investigated Kerry and found that he was a clean cut war hero. this was 2 years after the fact, when it would be far easier to get information than 35 years later.

- The medals were given by the Navy and they acknowlged they gave them. The summary that Senator Kerry had of his service that had been on his Senate site and was then on his campaign site was written by the Navy at the Senator's request in the 1980s.

- Brinkley, who wrote Tour of Duty is an academic historian who interviewed more than 100 people. Kerry had no editorial control over the book.

- All the men on the boat for any medals backed Kerry 100%.

The SBVT had hit twice in the spring and the primary campaign had defeated them.

Please give me an example where the vaunted "war room" refuted a smear better?

"I think the attacks will define their candidacy," Obama strategist David Axelrod said this morning. "When you have to resort to those tactics, that begins to define your campaign. It's one more way in which you have a very hard time standing up and saying you're the candidate of change."

Obama, of course, lays claim to that sunny point of view. And he suggested in an interview this week that he can handle the heat.

"I come from Chicago, man," he told the Tribune's John McCormick

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3950765">My view on things....

In almost every case in the past 4 years where a Democrat has gone negative against another Democrat they lost or both candidates lost. They were talking about this on Air America this morning.

Mark Penn is a creep. He has sullied HIllary's name and has already damaged her chances of being the nominee.

Two peas in a pod.

Blame Penn?

Hey, look at the candidate herself.

LOL.

Clueless.

My post was self-evident in its criticism of Hillary, too.

Nuance isn't your strong point, is it?

Clueless? No more than you are just dimwitted.

Oh, I forgot: LOL.

Your post was evident of the typical manner of HRC casting blame everywhere but where it belongs. Your response to mine was simple pettineess. Self-evident isn't an expression you should use until you appreciate its meaning.

HRC supporters are typically in a foul mood. But sour and surly don't win elections.

Maybe that's something the greatness of your intellect won't stoop to recognize.

Have a nice day.

I came to DU and was promptly grossed out by the Obama supporters. Nothing has changed.

Hillary people are all over Obama, both sides do this...stop with the self-righteous victim talk.

and the candidate going negative.

On the other hand, BooMan thinks Clinton is toast. I think that's very premature, but he may be right that she doesn't have much to work with over the next few days in NH. The "I'm ready" line already sounds pretty thin. But we all know she'll come out swinging. Whether getting nasty will help her or hurt her, I can't say. For all the talk of people not liking negative campaigning, it's often been very successful.

shows you it was always about them first and foremost.

PS: It won't work.

Negative campaigns rarely work - especially in New England.

Right down to race card being played. Healey was going to lose anyways, but she cemented that loss by her excessive negativity, and Clinton's campaign seems determined to travel that same path.

This will work alright -- it'll get the WalMart lawyer out of the race.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!:smoke:

I was talking about this a few weeks ago. This is an incredibly poor argument for electability. The argument is "You know how bad I am. You don't know how bad the other guy MIGHT be." It's a net negative argument for Hillary.

He's been getting a pass for too long.

how does she do this without looking desperate??? i have no idea.