The Clinton Strategy Has Already Worked, and It's Not What You Think

The Clinton strategy has already worked. On me. It's accomplished its goal. And Obama and his camp, including his supporters here, were played like a fiddle.

It's not about racism. It's about provoking the discussion of racism. It's not about sexism. It's about provoking the discussion of sexism. It's not about "style versus substance" or crying. It's about provoking the expression of cynicism.

And if you screamed "racism" at any point, you been had.
And if you screamed "sexism" at any point, you been took.
And if you screamed "LIAR" at any point, you been bamboozled, hoodwinked, led astray, run amok.

It's classic "attack where your opponent is strongest" politics, and it well and truly works.

Obama's greatest strength coming out of Iowa was optimism. It was an optimistic feeling about the process, about our prospects. It was a general good feeling, even a naivety. It was that optimism that had to be destroyed. It was that positive feeling about politics in general that had to be crushed.

Politics had to be returned to that thing that all young people and new voters and independents absolutely despise: "smash mouth" politics (as a Clinton supporter so elegantly stated it), deep hostile partisanship, accusation politics, identity politics, nasty politics, low-down politics, backstab politics, aggressive politics, the politics of the smear and the defense, the attack and counter-attack, the most negative kind of politics there are. The goal is not communicating the content of any specific attack. It's about creating an environment of negativity. In this sense, the Clinton campaign is not racist at all. It's more important that others accuse them of being racist. That's the strategy. Get people to turn up the volume of hostility, and you'll crush optimism.

In one of his books, William Burroughs talks about the real way to destroy a book in a book review. He says that you should say only nice or neutral things, but fill the review with obscure and difficult words that the reader will have to look up to understand. By the time readers gets through all those words, they will have such a negative feeling about the review that they'll transfer that on to the book itself, coming away with a queasy feeling about the book.

This is the essence of the Clinton campaign since Iowa: create a negative or hostile vibe to politics in general, and you will have destroyed Obama's key strength, not through direct argument, but by the circulation of affects. This brilliant (and it is brilliant) strategy will win. It's already won on these boards. Who still has a happy glow about the primary? Who thinks that this primary has been enjoyable? Only the most vicious smash mouth partisans on both sides like this sort of shit, and they're precisely the group Obama needs LEAST to win the nomination.

I've urged people on both sides to avoid the flamebait threads. This is the real reason you should avoid them.

He's perfect.

of His campaign.

:hi:

of Obama's campaign.

Well played.

But it was too easy --and impossible to resist.

My basic feeling is that both Hillary and Obama are essentially the same exact change, and I'd be equally happy with either.

But --I'm a New Yorker, and I do love Hillary :)

well played!

started the negativity by piling on Hillary when she was way ahead. Is that part of her plan too??? Let's see, first she had to be front runner so all her opponents would trash her, leaving the door open for her to pull out the negativity and squash Obama's audastic optimism. Yeah...that's it...

With such brilliant cunning she is sure to beat any pub they throw at us.

to peel off a specific sub-section of Obama's voters. I'm making no claims about who went negative first or anything so silly. The fact is that for this specific sub-class of voters, the negativity you claim didn't translate into a negative feeling. It now does, as a result of the strategy I'm suggesting.

If you're going to object, please do it on the basis of my actual argument.

Welcome:hi:

I don't even know where to start.

If anything, my post says that you shouldn't say BOO about Clinton! :rofl:

But you're entitled to your misreading. :hi:

:hi:

And you are admitting it is what she wants. Which goes back to the point that a Clinton Presidency is not a happy thing.

:-)

That is a sad comment indeed.

Yes, it is sad.

It's to make the fact that there is a black candidate too difficult for people to deal with, by ratcheting up emotions through continued veiled racist comments. People will find the debate about it too wrenching and will just walk away from Obama. They may not go to Clinton, but at least they won't be voting.

As soon as you make an argument that the Clinton campaign is trying to "make the fact that there is a black candidate too difficult for people to deal with, by ratcheting up emotions through continued veiled racist comments," you are falling for it again. You are helping to create the negative attack environment that is precisely the goal of the Clinton rhetoric. It's brilliant because it relies on YOU to undermine your own candidate.

you or me or any other voter. It says that she is manipulative and cynical and will do nothing to elevate political discourse or promote justice and equality in a meaningful way.

Because both candidates are corrupted to a certain extent. The culture of politics is dirty, you can't expect it to change overnight.

That's why I say an essential naivety was part of Obama's momentum.

That's what had to be crushed. The belief that politics could be clean had to be destroyed, and it very clearly was.

the Clinton is helping Obama, by preparing him what he will have to face if he did win the nom.

They made it impossible for him to win the nomination by taking away his strongest quality: the naivety of voters who could believe in a positive process. That was actually working to get him elected. With it gone, it's just a countdown to Obama's withdrawal. He can't win without those people, so it's essentially over.

Jesse Jackson Jr made a big deal about the so called crying again

I think the Obama campaign is not innocent, but I do agree with the premise of your post, good point!

Every time somebody enters into one of these non-policy arguments, they lose to the Clinton strategy

The premise of the Obama campaign is based on hope

On Meet the Press today, Clinton has successfully, in my opinion, inject doubts about how honest Obama is on his view on the war on Iraq (he changed positions some what to make sure Kerry and Edwards doesn’t look bad)

Clinton is good, everyone must have some dirty skeleton in their closets to get to run for the presidency, in my heart of heart, I think I believe Obama is more “clean” than Clinton and I think that I am changing my position back to Obama, but I do think that Obama campaign is based on hope, and a belief that we can do better , and Clinton is trying to say well “he’s not perfect”, no he’s not but that’s not the same as saying hes as corrupted as Clinton is.


I offically switched back to Obama!

Parrot Obama.

She is saying "'we' will change the country"

"'we' will blah blah blah"
etc.

Prior to hearing and realizing how successful Obama's "We" messages were, she had been pretty into the 'I' and 'me' wording.

BTW, alc, I am taken by W. Burroughs and your reporting on the book review techniques. Never ehard that but I'm assuming it is true.

Cheers.

Hope that you do not mind being on my Buddy List.

going to backfire. As long as they continue stirring the pot, they're responsible for creating divisions.

Great GOP strategy Hillary (aka Repub Lite) is using on a fellow Democrat.

Nope, she wont be divisive as a President, not at all.......... :thumbsdown:

much washed my hands of all the candidates who remain for partaking with such gusto. From my viewpoint (neutral), it seems they're all doing it.

I'll wait until the GE then vote for whomever had the best campaign strategists. :grr:

It's about spreading a negative feeling about politics in general. It kills Obama's constituency.

It's quite brilliant actually. Because it relies on the outraged response of Obama's own supporters for it to work. It essentially puts them in a position where they have to destroy their own strength. It's better than anything the Rove machine ever devised.

cause so much of it is "well, he did it first... NO, SHE did it first" infantile crap.

As someone who was the target of this: "Don't you have some crosses to burn?" from the keyboard of a long time DU member, I agree with the above quote.
Those seven words are the most digusting thing ever aimed my way on DU.

:hi:

look and feel like a religious retreat? Have you been paying attention to anything the last 7 years? We've been beat twice, we've gone to war and sent our kids, brother, husbands into battlefields of IED's with next to nothing in protection.

But now the American public demands sweet hope? Exciting change? Fascinating personalities, debates and do over's?

There is no frickin' glow to be had. We are at war IN this country whether you know it or not. Neither a rousing speech, a tearful regret, or a checkbook full of campaign promises is going to change the fact that we have let our government and media get so far out of control. Our immune system has turned on us and all we have to show for it are fallen down bridges, New Orleans, wildfires, war dead and maimed, lousy education systems that are "accountable"....

Get over yourselves...

I'm talking about a specific strategy aimed a specific bloc of voters. The way to beat those voters down was to "welcome" them to American politics, which they hate like fucking poison.

I said it was a good strategy.

Okay.

:shrug:

Now lets talk about experience when it comes to politics.

Let's talk issues!

What was Senator Obama doing when he refused to disassociate himself from Reverend McClurkin? That put him in between two vital Democratic constituencies; African Americans and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered groups, and made it look like he favored the larger group at the expense of the smaller one...

I say that not to cast dispersion on Senator Obama... I have actually worked on political campaigns at the state level and seen good men and women "do what they had to do" to get elected...

My point is few candidates are above "playing politics" and it is unfair to single out one candidate for "playing politics" and not the other...

Perhaps both senators are playing these games because there is so little substantive difference between them...

between the very real bigotry in the African American community and his very real concern for LGBT rights. He did it with less than good results. Crashed in the rocks, as it were. It's unfortunate.

Nobody is above playing politics. These people are politicians, for Christ's sake.

`

But he was forced to choose between two groups and he chose the larger group knowing that the other group really had no way to go... What was more telling was that he bought that dilemma on himself...But it's all about South Carolina...

Whoever started it...If the race become racialized it will not be to Senator Obama's benefit in the long run... And it would destroy us in the general regardless of who started it...

She too makes calculations about groups that can't go anywhere else. :-)

But playing with race is playing with fire...

The more belittling and destructive the comment, the louder the objections, and therefore the more successful the Clinton strategy.

The poster should have also called the Obama supporters whiners and losers, as that would surely bring out screaming objections, which would make the process that much uglier, which is to say, more beautiful.

Am I on the Truman show?

Good on ya.

We can talk issues when you're done creating a negative environment maybe?

Where do I pick up mu checks?

:hi:

Those are keen observations about the place we are in but why blame the Clintons? First you say they make racist statements. They did not. Their words were taken out of context and twisted. Then you accuse the Clintons of masterminding some evil plot to drag us all back into the gutter. Then you make a plea for peace.

Reading that is like having a guy punch you in the face then tell you he doesn't want to fight anymore.

Its not a plot. Whenever people get divided up, North versus South, rural versus urban, male versus female, rich versus poor some people throw bombs and then a war breaks out. We are all hurting each other and therefore ourselves. I wish it would all go away. I know which side it helps - the Republican one.

2. I did not accuse them of "masterminding some evil plot."

I am making a claim about a very specific strategy designed to peel off a very specific sub-class of voters. It's not "evil mastermind" stuff. It's traditional politics stuff, and there's not even really anything wrong with it.

But I don't believe it's a Clinton strategy per se.

If Obama designed his campaign to run on optimism and hope, perhaps it was bound to fall apart as people began to lose their naivety. People who have ignored politics all their lives (however long that might be) will initially believe anything they are told. But the closer they pay attention, the sooner they will catch on that all is not sweetness and light. And those who have been disillusioned with the political game in the past, wanted SO much to believe it could be different with a different person running the show. In both cases, perhaps Obama set himself up for failure by communicating to his audiences a standard that even he could never meet.

In other words, to the extent that Obama's success was dependent upon the naivety of his followers, it was probably doomed from the beginning, and would have been against anybody. Because naivete doesn't last as people are exposed to reality. And because that's not the nature of politics, or any other form of human interaction.

Look at this way. Every couple newly in love FEELS that everything will be wonderful everyday for the rest of eternity. That's what young love is all about. But if they get married with that expectation, if they never grow out of it, they are bound for divorce. And it makes no sense to blame the real world that comes crashing down around them.

Perhaps that's why there's so much bitterness here at DU all of a sudden. People are beginning to wake up and smell that Monday morning coffee, but they aren't ready to give up the dream, so are lashing out at the people WHOM THEY PERCEIVE are making them drink.

I would also say that you're right to an extent - a campaign based on "non-political" politics will likely fall apart unless it can transform itself. We need not assume that the sweetness and light part of it was going to be a main strength forever. Rather, it was a strength that could be transformed into a "real" political constituency if given the time, in much the same way, to use your analogy, lust and infatuation CAN be transformed into lasting love.

That said, I think the Clinton camp recognized that they needed it to fall apart damn fast, and perhaps faster than it ordinarily would have, and instituted this strategy to, well, speed that up.

And exploiting it. The jury's still out as to whether they have done so in this case. But for that matter, the jury's still out as to whether Obama will fail. You make the case he already has, but I see him as a LONG way from losing the nomination.

But you're right. The jury's still out.

:-)

They learned it from the Republicans. James Carville's firm has been doing it in other countries.

Their super-secret method to fix the election is obviously working. Now they have all the self-identified intellectuals espousing various confusing, ironic, and recherche theories.

It works so well because it uses MEMES, the super-secret patented technology invented by the ancient Tibetans and scientifically developed by a joint team of NASA/K-Tel SCIENTISTS to allow astronauts to live and work in total weightlessness for up to three years without having to pee. (Actually, they did have to pee, they just didn't care, so powerful is this technology.)

It's brilliant. Absolutely. And it even got you, one of the most insightful and intelligent DUers. AdvTibMemeTech is strong stuff. (It's currently being adapted by CIA scientists to allow elite single men to meet, seduce, lay and dump any hot chick they want in less than 30 seconds!)

But just keep one thing in mind: Whatever happens, wherever there is trouble, or doubt, or dissension, wherever there is a worker being beaten by a boss, wherever there is a blond-haired child crying, wherever there is disease and death and sorrow, you will find the cold hand and baleful visage of ...

(Cue FX: thunder, lightning, bat shadows)

... HILLARY OF THE DARKNESS!

--p!

Have fun with that though.

Love the comedy, too. Nice work!

I will dispute you on one point: I would never claim to be "one of the most insightful and intelligent DUers." Very run of the mill here. :hi:

the "strategy" you believe they had, how did they pull it off. How did they get people to do things they could call them racist or sexist for? What were the seeds of disharmony and where were they planted?

The Clinton's know the political landscape better than anyone. You get surrogates out there saying things likely to provoke responses. They themselves made comments that have turned controversial, etc. I'm saying the point of such commentary was not to race-bait at all, but rather to produce controversy about race-baiting. They encouraged the sexism bit as well.

I have no problem with aggressive politics. There's nothing super-secret about it. If his strength was the political naivety of a vaued segment of supporters, destroy it with fighting, much of it coming from his hardcore supporters.

There was no magic potion. :-)

That is all.

If your guy wins I'll buy a t-shirt to that effect.

:-)

Because of the tactics you describe, it has become impossible for anyone to run a positive campaign without some psycho-babble and innuendo taking the air of the tires. I am fed up with this campaign, the people who seem to be ahead and especially with the kool-aid saturated supporters.

Even if we win the election, we've already lost.

Out of dread. Welcome back the politics of cynicism and triangulation. Liberalism thrives on a positive relationship between the citizenship and the government. Once more, the Clintons have discarded this public relationship in favor of their personal ambitions. Deja fucking vu.