Incoming! (Primary hits and why Hillary doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt)

[ProSense]

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Incoming!

It's hard to come up with an objective measure of which candidates are being attacked the most, but this ought to be a reasonably interesting proxy.

I looked at the press releases from five sources: the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign, the RNC, and the DNC, and counted the number of times that McCain, Clinton or Obama was mentioned in the headline of the press release. (For Obama press releases, which tend to have vague headlines like "Barack Obama Statement on Iran", I also counted hits in the press release abstract). Then I sorted the hits by the month of the campaign from September onward.

These figures were tallied by hand and so may be slightly imprecise, but you should certainly get the general idea. Also, this should be obvious, but the idea was to account for attacks only, so I didn't count instances in which say a DNC press release mentioned Clinton, or a McCain release mentioned McCain himself.



Let me also give you that data in tabular form, and then a few observations.



<...>

3. The Obama campaign does very, very little attacking (quite possibly too little), at least in the form of press releases. That doesn't mean that they won't go negative, but they prefer to wait for an opportunity to counter-punch and/or to do so somewhat surreptitiously. But what they won't usually do is to try and dictate the course of a news cycle with an attack.

4. In contrast, the Clinton press shop is always operating at a fever pitch, and much of that involves attacking their opponents. During March and April, the Clinton press shop was hitting Obama nearly once a day. But the Clinton campaign has also delivered considerably more hits on McCain than the Obama campaign has (at least through its press releases). Also, note that Clinton has considerably cut down on her hits on Obama for the past several weeks.

Hillary always wants the benefit of the doubt for her calculated statements...

• Summary: Hillary makes reckless comment, gets criticized, blames Obama
  
  
• Hillary's "some people" and Bill's "they" add up to pathetic. Who will clue them in that it's over?
  
  
• Stop clarifying what Hillary meant, it's clear. She also knew what Obama meant when he said "bitter"
  
  
• Hillary's op-ed is delusional crap and a lie and she should be ashamed

but always pushes Obama for other people's comments:

Obama Again Apologizes for a Preacher

<...>

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause," Obama said in a statement first posted by the Chicago Sun Times.

more

Clinton camp not satisfied

A statement from Wolfson:

Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics. We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pflegler's dispicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so.