Relentless negative campaign: HRC abandons positive approach

"I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don't think anybody who's watching would deny that. I gather that she's determined that instead of trying to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she's trying to convince folks that I wouldn't be a good one."

I think that this pretty much nails it the head. Sen. Barack Obama's own words:

Pool report on Obama's visit to Pentecostal Temple Church of God in Christ in Las Vegas early this afternoon from Michael Martinez of Chicago Tribune:

In a brief Q & A before Obama entered the church:

Question: Respond to Clinton's charge that he is distorting her statement on Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King:

"I am baffled by that statement by the senator. She made an ill advised statement about Dr. King suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with the Civil Right Acts. I did not make the statement. I haven't commented on the statement. For them to suggest that we're injecting race as a consequence of a statement she made that we haven't commented on is pretty hard to figure out. Maybe you can tell me and explain to me how we distorted her statement."

Question: Clinton campaign saying in a conference call earlier today that there is no difference in their record on war in Iraq because both voted for war funding:

"Sen. Clinton started off trying to make history and now she's trying to rewrite it. She's trying to rewrite it about my record and hers."

"In 2002, I made a clear and unequivocal statement before 3,000 people that this war was a bad idea." He said he was against the war in 2003 and 2004 also.

"Now she chose to vote for the war and she can decide whether it's a mistake or not. Apparently she has not said anything about it. For her to suggest somehow that half of a sentence that I uttered in 2004 in a setting in which I was trying not to throw the Democratic nominee and vice presidential nominee under the bus, after Tim Russert specifically asked me since you were so opposed to the war, what do you think about the fact that they weren't, to take that out of context and try to suggest my position and hers is the same is ludicrous. There is not objective observer of this who thinks at all that this argument is credible. And what's stunning is not only are they trying to distort my record, this is coming from Bill Clinton who is trying to suggest that he opposed the war from the start, something that everybody again who has looked at this objectively is puzzled by."

Q: then why did he vote for war funding

A: "Once we had our troops two years into a war, it was important that we try to do the best possible job on it. So is Sen. Clinton's argument is that the only people who were principled about this were people who voted against funding all the time, if that's the case, she should talk to Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer (war critics who also voted for the funding). Apparently they weren't against the war the entire time."

Q: Dick Durbin equating the Clinton attacks to swiftboating you. Is Clinton swiftboating you?

"I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don't think anybody who's watching would deny that. I gather that she's determined that instead of tyring to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she's trying to convince folks that I wouldn't be a good one." "I don't think that's what the American people are looking for."

Obama was greeted by about 420 congregants and a 50-member choir at the Pentecostal Temple, a Church of God in Christ church, an African-American church in a Las Vegas neighborhood populated by black and Latino families, who largely live in poverty, according to residents.
http://thepage.time.com/full-comments-fr om-obamas-vegas-media-availability/



Display:


Obama went negative this summer (none / 0)

Obama went negative again in Nov.

Edwards went uber negative in Oct. through the middle of Dec.

Clinton is merely trying to level the field and catch up in terms of the negatives.  She has much right to go negative as they do.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:51:23 AM EST

Re: Obama went negative this summer (none / 0)

you are so right.  I am sick of this rewriting of History by Obama and his supporters.
Where did the positive change candidate go?  Why has Obama become such a negative, manipulative candidate?

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's, fringe left double standard (none / 0)

"So is Sen. Clinton's argument is that the only people who were principled about this were people who voted against funding all the time, if that's the case, she should talk to Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer (war critics who also voted for the funding). Apparently they weren't against the war the entire time."

So Obama (and many on the far left) says that all that matters is first vote.  Anyone who voted against it or has since repudiated their vote, like Edwards get a free pass.

Subsequent votes are just political ranglings?  Don't focus on those votes, they are meaningless, move it along, nothing to see here.

Is that it?

A lot of the people that the fringe left loves voted for the war.  Hagel and Edwards come to mind.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST

Re: Obama's, fringe left double standard (none / 0)

So being anti-war now makes you "fringe left?"  You really do have a lot of interesting views for someone posting continuously on a progressive site.  

Hillary was wrong on the war, along with most democrats, when we had a chance to stop Bush.  The current debacle is the result.  No one in the Dem leadership has been able to cut off funding in a responsible way since then b/c we need 60 votes to do it.  Hence, Obama's votes since arriving in the Senate.  

But you already knew all of that and simply want to blur lines to benefit Hillary.  Which is really sad, b/c this should be about who is best positioned to lead the party.  Not who is a better spinner in chief.  


by HSTruman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No not what I said (none / 0)

I said that Obama (and many on the far left) says that all that matters is first vote.  Anyone who voted against it or has since repudiated their vote, like Edwards get a free pass.

Some, including some on the far left, look at the first vote and look at ALL the votes.  Some looks at not just words but deeds as well.

Some, not all.  And not Obama.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No not what I said (none / 0)

Hmm, you are still referring to everyone who is anti-war as part of the "far left."  Shocking, coming from you.  

Also, I would note again that you are trying to make a rhetoric v action distinction where Clinton's votes (presumably her "action"), post-Obama entering the Senate, are AT BEST the same as Obama's on the war.  Not sure how that helps you at all.  The difference between the two is that if Democrats had done what Obama suggested in the first place we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.  

But, of course, you don't actually care about logic or the substance of any of these votes.  It really is all about trying to play gottcha for you, isn't it?  That's too bad.  Every now and again, you'll post something that is intelligent and thoughtful.    


by HSTruman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:30:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The politics of hope didn't last long. (none / 0)

I think Obama has played right into Clinton's hands by playing to race card in various way over the past couple of weeks. It's undoubtedly solidifying his base ob black voters as the polls are showing he's going to pay a very heavy price for it because most white and hispanic voters who aren't focussing on the minutiaie of these arguments will just perceive a move in the direction of business as usual racial politics. She can talk about this all day from the high ground and what you get is a big blaze which doesn't do him any good in the long term althoug there is some marginal immediate benefit in SC where he has to win or he's toast. Then comes Florida and the latest poll has her twenty points ahead.      


by ottovbvs on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST

Re: The politics of hope didn't last long. (none / 0)

Well then it won't matter if Obama is the nominee then because he's already made the election about black people vs. whites playing right into the GOP's hands. He'll go down in a Dukakis landslide.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The politics of hope didn't last long. (none / 0)

It's not hate. His campaign is flailing around and damaging himself. Don't blame me for the mistakes of the Obama campaign.

Divisive? I would think that Obama's campaign is winning in that category.

He's done worse than damage himself though. He's damaging black candidates in the near future. Sad but true.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:24:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

about time (none / 0)

I hoped she would pull out the stops after Iowa, I think she should have been drawing a stronger contrast with Obama in December. Obama's defense, basically complaining that Clinton is twisting his record and campaign and that the American people won't like that, is weak and disingenuous.


by souvarine on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.