The Clinton's are geniuses at destroying actual political debate

[Armstead]

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I see him as much better than the campaign he has been forced to wage against the Clinton Attack machine.

If this were a race between Obama and Edwards and someone like Biden or Clark, I believe all of the candidates would actually be competing to offer voters a choice based on actual messages and visions and specific. policy proposals.

They would differ (and agree) and they would be vigorously challenging each other. Perhaps in a heated way. But it would be on a higher level. And Obama would be promoting his elevated hopes for the country in a positive way.

And the tone of the process -- including the zeitgeist at places like DU -- would have been less polarizing. Sure, we'd be arguing too. But I think it would have been on a level of actual meaning -- not just on which candidate is worst as a person.

Instead, the Clinton machine has used their trademarked style of the politics of personality and mud to drag the primaries into the sewer. And, in the process have forced Obama to attempt to fight back in a way he would have much rather avoided.

They did it to Edwards early on by twisting Edwards' basic message of uniting the majority against the elite special-interests who dominate the status quo. Instead of fighting back honestly, Hillary and her crew chose to depict Edwards LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE CHALLENGE as an echo of GOP Rovian mudslinging.

It was a brilliant move by the Clintons. They managed to distort Edwards point by engaging in the exact same tactics they were criticizing him for. They were charging him with being Rovian by being Rovian themselves. They were able to cast Edwards as an "angry" Republican wannabee -- which is the opposite of what he truly is.

Brilliant but destructive. They cheapened the real core of the issue, and distracted the public's attention from Edwards actual message.

Now they have turned their muddy guns on Obama. Totally distorting his record and what he says. Forcing Obama to become more divisive and negative than he has wanted to be.

It'll probably win the Clinton Machine the nomination. Maybe the General Election if the GOP messes up.

But at what cost to the Democratic Party, the democratic process and the interests of the nation as a whole?

[Adelante]

1. If they cared about the Democratic Party

Bill Clinton would be campaigning as a traditional candidate's spouse. We're supposed to have one candidate against one candidate, not two.

[mondo joe]

3. You mean if he really cared he wouldn't do what he thinks is best?

What a load of bullshit.

If Obama could have had Bill at his side he'd have taken him up in a heartbeat.

[Adelante]

11. Obama wouldn't have Bill at his side

Just as no Democratic primary candidate in 2004 had Bill at his side. I see the fairness in the last Democratic President of the United States supporting his wife's candidacy. But he has no business attacking her Democratic opponents. If she can't do it herself (and I know she can) without taking unfair advantage, but as an independent woman and Democrat, she shouldn't have run in the first place.

[mondo joe]

13. That's a joke. Fool yourself if you want to - you're not fooling anyone else.

[babylonsister]

2. "But at what cost to the Democratic Party"-that's the crux, and why

don't they care? I agree with your entire post; a different candidate-Biden, Dodd, Richardson-would have elevated the debate. Now look what we're stuck with.

[hayu_lol]

4. Seems to me that the 'mud' you are all complaining about started with...

the Obama camp. Remember Axelrod? That was just the start.

Inexperience on Obama's part left him no recourse but to cheapen the political process.

Don't even try to diminish the solid backgrounds of the Clintons UNLESS you could have done better. Obviously Senator PRESENT cannot.

[babylonsister]

7. You're not telling the truth. But you know that. Let's start with Penn's

remarks that were spread all over creation about drug use. Follow that up with the Muslim e-mails the Clinton volunteers sent out. Then we have Shaheen's antics. Come on. Open your eyes.

[KittyWampus]

18. Axelrod lol! Keep trying to make him out to be Mark Penn or Rove it's ridiculous.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I think you are falling for the bull: Obama is playing dirty

He has his attack dogs sending stuff to the press about "racist Clinton statements" he is using code to divide black and white in SC. He created the race issue--as it only benefits him, and it did.

The media is suggesting that poor Obama is the butt of the Clinton attacks. I disagree. Clinton is attempting to run against a black man. How do you do that with the surface feelings so keen on shouting "racism" at every turn?

Clinton, many times, has been the butt of attacks, and when responding, is accused of attacking. It is what George Bush did to Gore. It is a political ploy.

So, when you suggest that Clintons attack and everyone else wants to talk of the issues, I disagree. Obama is down in the dirt--playing dirty politics. The media, however is covering for him.

[Armstead]

19. My original post was that Obama is being forced to play their game

I believe he wouldn't be forced to stoop to it if he weren't being put on the defensive by the Clinton War Room tactics.

[GalleryGod]

39. Grassy Knoll Gang heard from.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Great point. Edwards and Obama generally keep it to policy differences--

they don't attack each other's character. The Clintons are pulling out every weapon in the arsenal, by contrast. Should Obama or Edwards end up as the nominee, the Repubs will have a leg up on attacking them.

[ursi]

8. I like the way they play victim one minute and agressor the next ...low politics

First they whine in Iowa that out of state college students shouldn't be able to politic then they turn around and use the "Iowa model" to shove every non-English speaking Las Vegas Strip worker into the at-large caucuses to cheat.

I'm so impressed by the Clintons. I want 8 more years of the crazy years of scandals and agressive greed.

[GalleryGod]

21. Like Linda Blair in the "Exorcist" Ha! Victim/Bully/Victim/Bully

Victim,Lisa.

[GalleryGod]

9. Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Obama, & Clinton. Out of these...

I think that Clinton is the ONLY one whom the GOP can BEAT.


And..they haven't a clue how to run against....

[ellacott]

10. Good post

I didn't like when Edwards was accused of mudslinging.
I don't like the way they chosen to challenge Obama. Most can see their strategy.

They just might win but it may not be a win for the party.

[GalleryGod]

12. Hyannis Port is NOT pleased.

[Armstead]

24. That photo makes him really look like the Liberal Lion

[Skidmore]

14. Which is why they should be shunned at this point.

The Democratic Party and the nation are not well served by this type of divisiveness. We have been brought to the breaking point as a nation by this type of political gamesmanship. Whether it is the Bush or Clinton slime machine, it makes no difference, the effects are the same. A divided nation not willing to engage in any discourse and preoccupied with navel gazing.

[BenDavid]

15. Listen, I respect those supporting edwards. I believe him to be a

class act, but from the start he had the same message as in 04 and the majority of the people did not accept it then. Edwards should have not changed his message but found a way to deliver it better. I too fault the press for picking obama and falling all over themselves to report postives about obama and negatives towards edwards and hrc.

do not be suckered in by all the media saying the clintons will destroy the party. When you read or hear something like that look a lil closer and find first if they are for one of the other candidates and second what is his/her stake in this election. The republicans can get in a pier 6 brawl and fight like hell and you never hear this, oh my goodness so and so are destroying the party.

It is only democrats that "end up lookin' like a monkey fuckin' a football out there" (days of thunder"

[Windy]

16. A return to the Clinton Circus. NO THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Tarc]

17. Don't usually see this much bullshit on the DU by 9am

The Obamaniacs are early risers today.

People are catching on to Obama's substance-less campaign, and he began going negative to catch p again, not because Clinton "forced" him to. Even Edwards is taking his shots at Obama now.

[GalleryGod]

20. Speaking of fertilizer...

Is that all you've got...this must be only your 1st or 2nd Presidential Campaign.

[Tarc]

25. I've been voting since `84, my dear little boy

[Armstead]

22. Did you read my post? I'm not an Obama supporter

Edwards is my candidate, although I like Obama well enough.

But I do hate to see a good candidate with a positive message like Obama get pushed off course by the Clintonista Bullies and their market-tested politics of divisiveness.

[Tarc]

27. Don't have to be a direct supporter

to post a delusional rant like that. When the Anointed One didn't see New Hampshire go the way he thought it would/should, the first cry to come from the camp was "FRAUD!", soon followed by an extremely negative bent heading into Nevada. Didn't work there either, and now its gotten worse.

[Armstead]

29. Your use of "the Anointed One" is an example of Clintonism

What's wrong with people being enthusiastic supporters of Obama?

I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of him. I'm lukewarm.

But I hate to see what the Clinton machine is doing to him and -- by extension -- to the process of selecting a leader and determining the direction of the Democrats and the US.

[HeraldSquare212]

23. That's their objective: to turn people off and reduce turnout in elections

and interest in the process.

[Strawman]

26. The Clintons just play the media game that Mike Deaver started

So does every other major Presidential candidate/campaign or incumbent President. The members of the media pool that cover presidents and candidates agree to cover staged "events" in exchange for access that helps them advance their own careers. Obama does the same thing. It's systemic. It's bigger than the "evil Clintons."

[Armstead]

28. It is systemic --- But that doesn;t make it the right way to campaign

Rather than feed into it, the Democrats could actively challenge the MSM and offer a positive campaign and unite to fight the GOP style of politics.

It's amazing what some scrubbing could do against the mud.

[Strawman]

31. That kind of cooperation would be nice, but it is unlikely

It requires a level of trust among the candidates which is not there. And experimental research has shown that people attend to negative messages in negative ads more than positive ones, so the temptation to defect and go negative is too great, especially when a candidate feels he or she is falling behind. These candidates are playing to win, and unfortunately, the rest of us lose.

[BeyondGeography]

30. Very well stated

When's the last time we talked about reform, transparency, exposing special interest arguments to the light of day, and mobilizing public opinion in favor of our programs? That's the core of what Obama proposes and it was given a fair hearing in Iowa and New Hampshire, until the last weekend or so. That's when things got silly courtesy of the Clintons.

One could argue that the GOP and the media would have taken us down this road eventually, but that would only have been after a relatively clean and constructive nominating process that produced a Democratic nominee, whomever it was, who was far more identified with ideas than with tactics.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I grant the honor of destroying political debate to the media

The media has refused to encourage real discussion of political issues, rather it has done the actual opposite. They don't want to cover issues, they want to cover personalities. They don't want to discuss policy, they want to discuss horse races. The media is only interested in sex appeal and mud, and whatever plot line they can promote in a political contest that can best provide them with endless effortless programming opportunities for increased ratings.

The media took a very talented fresh faced politician and went absolutely ga ga over him, as intensely as the Brits ever treated Princess Diana. The media gave Barack Obama the full rock star treatment after serving less than two years in the U.S. Senate, and suddenly there was "no oxygen left" for established credentialed political figures like Joe Biden, Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd to run a presidential campaign with any hope of gaining traction. For over a year the media covered the phenomena of Barack Obama much much more than any programs or policies of Barack Obama.

They had their own script for Hillary Clinton. They never liked her but they promoted her as the reigning Democratic champion with all the hard wired advantages; Presidential politics framed as a "Rocky" movie. If they couldn't have a real competitive Democratic horse race to cover they planned to concentrate on personality archetypes instead. And the media never stopped mining and reminding the public about all of Hillary's supposed negatives. What they refused to do was discuss the track records and actual platforms of the candidates. What they refused to do was any new investigative journalism; they were content to recycle old charges as if they were summer reruns that they didn't have to budget new money to produce.

I remember when the Democratic primary contest was still universally positive. Voters, and the media especially, found it "boring". They commented on how odd it was that all of the Democratic Party candidates were being so nice to each other on the debate stage while it was the Republicans who actually ripped into each other. And back when that was happening Hillary Clinton was coasting on a glide path toward easy victory. You don't have to be a genius to realize that a positive non controversial campaign was working for Hillary Clinton big time. And though many here choose not to remember it actually was Barack Obama who openly singled that his campaign decided that it was going to go negative on Hillary. And that was a turning point in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"Going negative" isn't exactly like eating babies for lunch, though sometimes people here described it as if it were. Below this post, as a reply to it, I am going to attach an OP I wrote a while back called "The Negative of Being Hillary". I think it is highly relevant to what began going on in this race about at that time. This post would be way too long if I included it within this one, but please read it for context.

I wrote another post yesterday however, a simpler one, that I will repost here:

My pet theory on vetting, the Clintons, and Rezko, is that months ago the Clinton camp got frustrated that the media had been sitting on stories like the Rezbo one and not publishing them until after the early primaries, when the Democratic nomination might already have been decided. Stories about alleged problems the Clinton campaign had with fund raisers, like what you point to here, WERE making it into print in time to effect the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, but Rezko was being sat on.

I suspect the Rezko story line, potent or impotent as it may ultimately be, is not a total surprise and new development. I think both Clintons knew it was out there but they weren't going to be the ones to directly call attention to it. They expected the press to do their normal job, and got frustrated over a perceived double standard regarding the "vetting" of Democratic candidates for President.


Finally the media is beginning to actually focus on some of Barack Obama's past. Finally they are starting to look beyond the gloss to the actual man and what he has done and what he says he will do. They are starting to attempt the math; adding two plus two to see if the sum of the parts equals the whole of the promise. Had the Clinton camp not gotten serious about forcing critical and yes negative attention onto Barack Obama I think the media would have been content to skip right over almost all of it; it simply wasn't the plot line they had settled on.

Personally I believe that Barack Obama's potential may be real, I think maybe he can deliver the goods despite his relative inexperience, but I welcome seeing him tested. I welcome that with all of our candidates. The media wasn't interested in doing that much with Obama before the Clintons insisted it be looked at. Politics isn't always pretty but it does have an inner self correcting logic. One way or another issues make their way to the fore.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. The Negative of Being Hillary

Originally posted December 12/13/07

There is much talk lately about a Clinton team decision to use negative campaigning against her Democratic opponents for President. There are lots of ways to go negative but none of them are positive contributions to a real debate on issues. No one “likes” negative campaigns, least of all the voters, but they persist anyway based on the persuasive argument that negative campaigns often are highly effective in winning elections. While undoubtedly that is true, they are less effective winning Democratic Primary contests. By and large the voters who participate in Democratic Primaries are drawn toward candidates for positive reasons, and they appreciate a substantive discussion on the issues more so than average voters. One thing Hillary Clinton is not is dumb. Why then, at this stage in the Democratic Primaries, has her campaign begun to go negative in selected instances? I suggest it’s because she started out at a disadvantage compared to the other candidates.

It was never an obvious disadvantage that Hillary Clinton faces. Far more obvious are various advantages Hillary held over the rest of the Democratic field when this race for President began, hence the original veneer of “inevitability” that went with her long held front runner status. While Hillary Clinton held substantial leads over her opponents her basic disadvantage was moot. Now it no longer is.

The dirty work on Hillary began long ago, but it wasn’t begun by her current Democratic primary opponents. A negative campaign against Hillary Clinton has been waged in America’s media now for over 15 years, there and in countless “humorous” emailed hatchet jobs that seemed to perennially circulate about her. The lowest blows have long since landed, and now they hardly even get mentioned. They don’t need to be; everyone already has them internalized for easy unconscious reference. By and large Hillary’s opponents for the nomination can stick to the high road themselves now while they hitch hike off the drive to demonize both Clintons that the Right set off on long ago.

They don't have to bring up the attacks against Hillary, just remind folks of them by questioning her "electability", while mentioning how "polarizing" and "divisive" Clinton is with so many people. It's an easy hit, with no ones fingerprints left at the crime scene. Hillary’s negatives are collectively understood, and blandly referred to as her “baggage”.

The trick for Clinton all along has been to turn her negatives into a positive. She does that by stressing how she’s been through the Republican inquisition already and emerged from it in fine fighting form. She does that by stressing how she’s strong enough to win, strong enough to take anything the Republicans may attempt to throw at her. When Republicans attack Democrats, we want Democrats to fight back with a negative offensive of their own. The paradox for Hillary Clinton now is finding a way to show her fighting form without seeming to unfairly beat up on Democratic opponents who inherited the luxury of indirectly attacking her by inference.

When Hillary flashes a smile it outshines her trump card. But if she lashes out that stands out for going negative when voters want positives. Still Clinton is correct. She’s already been battle tested in ways none of the other Democratic candidates have yet had to fully face. But the media now is more interested in horse races than in muck raking, and Republicans for the most part are keeping their best powder dry. From where she stands it has fallen on the Clinton campaign to remind voters that her closet has been strip searched already, while no one can say for sure what “baggage” is still stuffed in that of her opponents. To Hillary that counts as an advantage she offers as a candidate for President, but it is an advantage few will focus on if this campaign stays uniformly “positive” and Hillary alone must lug the baggage.

[Armstead]

36. God forbid politics might be positive

What pisses me off about the Clintons -- or put more kindly, is unfortunate about them -- is that they are certain to bring a renewed flare up of the meaningless polarization that we have been mired in for far too long.

By polarization, I do not mean a polarization of actual ideas, like the merits of liberalism over conservatism.

I mean a meaningless personality and lifetstyle-based polarization that the Clintons provoke, both intentionally and unintentionally.

I believe the democratic Party would benefit immensely by having a candidate who represents a fresh start, and allows our side to actually fight the GOP on ideas and values.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. About your last line

Bill Clinton was that candidate in 1992. That is why the Republicans hated him so much and why they worked to destroy him and Hillary. It's because Bill ran as a "New Democrat" who was open to breaking out of closed mind sets and finding areas of commonality with Independents and Republicans on behalf of all Americans. That drove Republicans up a wall because he challenged their script. He broke the stale mold of "liberal Democrat" that the Republicans had worked so hard to stuff all their adversaries into before dismissing them. Bill Clinton was a threat because he was not polarizing initialy. They had to pull out every gun they had to create polarization around Bill Clinton.

They will do the same again if confronted with a similar threat from another "new" "New Democrat"

[no name no slogan]

41. The reason the Repubs hated him was that he stole their platform

"welfare reform", "free trade", "the era of big government is over" are straight out of the Eisenhower/Nixon playbook.

The Republicans hated Clinton because he stole their thunder and co-opted their ideas. And Democrats, so overjoyed at actually being in the White House for the first time in 12 years, went right along with him, and sold us down the river.

[Armstead]

43. He WAS that candidate -- But that was before he sold out or...

took off his populist disguise. (I'm still not sure which.)

Sure the GOP did everything possible to besmirch and defeat Clinton.

However, he gave them a lot of ammo, and he gave up consistently....And frankly, I don't think he really wanted to promote a progressive populist agenda.

Like most Democrats I was thrilled when he won. But over time, I kept getting increasingly frustrated as he'd either ignore important issues or actively support the GOP agenda. I kept thinking "speak up and stand up for us...please."

The fact that the health care system was worse when he left office than when he began is one symptom of that. he should have been relentless in pushing for real health care reform, instea dof just tossing the issue into the dumpster after the first defeat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Personally, I think Hillary is the Clinton most willing to fight

rather than go along to get along. From my perspective I think she would make a better President than her husband. She is tactical, I know that, so she plots her moves and holds her fire at times when I would rather she led a charge. But I think she is more of a "fire when you see the whites of their eyes" strategist, and compared to Bill she has less of a need to want to please everyone, though she will avoid making enemies when possible.

[enough already]

34. If your record was pro-war and pro-corporate America like Hillary's....

...you'd try and turn it into a gutter sexism/racism fight too.

[PDittie]

35. Who won the debate, again? (toon)

[GalleryGod]

37. Give 'Em the Old Razzle-Dazzle "

[Armstead]

38. But his razzle dazzle was clean

[Perry Logan]

42. No one seems to be able to point out exactly which rule Bill Clinton has broken.

[Armstead]

45. How about mischaracterizing Obama's remarks about the GOP, for a start?

It was an outright lie that Obama was praising the ideas of the GOP.

Instead of abusing his position as a former president to attack his wife's rivals, the least he could have done was to support his wife without fanning the flames of division and polarization.

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. Clintons'. This whole 'campaign' makes me wanna puke!