Shaken Clinton Camp Prepares For Trench Warfare After NH

[babylonsister]

Shaken Clinton Camp Prepares For Trench Warfare After NH

January 6, 2008 08:56 PM
Thomas Edsall


Hillary Clinton's campaign, anticipating probable defeat here in New Hampshire on January 8, is gearing up for an extended trench-warfare battle against Barack Obama.

The former First Lady is planning to fight Obama in South Carolina on January 26, and in the gargantuan nationwide primary on Tuesday, February 5 -- with contests in 19 states, including New York, California, New Jersey, Georgia, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Colorado. If she remains competitive, Clinton's plan is to continue to compete in Louisiana on February 9, in Virginia and Maryland on February 12, in Wisconsin on February 19, in Ohio on March 4 -- and beyond, if necessary.

In an approach redolent of Walter Mondale's 1984 "Where's the Beef?" tactic against Gary Hart, Clinton has adopted the less memorable slogan "Rhetoric vs. Results, Talk vs. Action."

The Clinton campaign is sparing no effort to pressure the media to lean on Obama's perceived vulnerabilities. Looking to leverage Obama's slender resume, a Clinton operative argued to HuffPost that the campaign will be able to demonstrate that "Obama is just not a plausible person in this environment of international peril," and that the longer the primary campaign can be extended, the better chance Clinton will have to prove that "there is not even a second level to Obama, there is no depth."

The results of this gambit are far from certain. Many political observers here see Hillary on the ropes. "I think Iowa was the best she is going to do. Now she has the stink of a loser on her," said an official from the upper echelons of the 2004 Democratic campaign. In the upcoming states, voters "are just now starting to pay attention, and all they know is that he {Obama}] is a winner and she's a loser."

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/06/shaken-clinton-camp-prepa_n_80125.html

[ccpup]

1. the Huffington Post quoting an official

from the upper echelons of the (miserably run) 2004 Democratic Campaign calling Hillary a "loser"?

Oddly, I'm not surprised. :eyes:

[babylonsister]

2. You cannot deny they're digging in for trench warfare, and it sure

looks to me like the camp is at the very least shaken, but I'm not surprised you didn't address that. :eyes:

[ccpup]

5. sorry I didn't address that

yes, they're digging in for trench warfare. Everyone who's got half a brain in this campaign is digging in for trench warfare. The Clintons never did do well when they were in the lead. Their strength is found when their backs are up against the wall. Not necessarily a bad quality to have in politics.

As for being shaken, I think it's being overstated. They always expected the Polls to tighten and anticipated there would be losses along the way. I suspect anyone would be disappointed to have essentially tied for Second in the first State and be down in the Polls -- having lost a lead -- in the second State.

But these are the Clintons we're talking about. Bill dropped twenty points in one week in NH in 1992, found his back against the wall, came out swinging and ended up with the Nomination. I doubt Obama or Edwards are counting Hillary out yet. And, if they are, I'd be surprised.

[babylonsister]

8. I think the Clinton camp going negative won't be helpful.

As a talking head just said, Clinton inspires enthusiasm, Obama inspires passion. We'll see.

[ccpup]

11. I think the Clintons

drawing contrasts and bringing up issues that should be raised for the Voters before the General is a good idea. For the process, for the Election and for our Democracy.

(insert American Flag rippling in a breeze with soaring music in the background here)

[Cha]

27. The clinton camp has gone

negative since they realized their sunny dispostion wasn't cutting any ice and now their negativity has them in the throes of despair..what's a campaign to do?

[K Gardner]

9. Did you see the Matthews commentary on Scarbrough this morning? I've got to find the

video or transcript somewhere. It truly shook me to the core, and I usually don't put much stock in what he says. But your article is correct.. they are hunkering down for all-out war. And its not only the Clintons.. its the old Democratic Party, the Old Guard, the 'status quo' and the corporate interests behind her that cannot accept a defeat. They do not want Obama and they are not worried, at this point, that Edwards will get close to the nomination. They are going after Obama and its not going to be pretty.

Its not just "oh, they're going to throw some mud".. unless they forego this fight in an effort to preserve their legacy, the Clintons are going for blood. Bill started his frontal attack on Obama at a rally last night, angry and righteous, telling the crowd that it is a dangerous fantasy (or something along those lines).

All this crap here between the Edwards and Obama people has got to stop. If we want change, and I think all of us do, we're going to have to work together on this one. I'll get behind Obama before I'll see him steamrolled by the same machine that has ground America down to where we are now.

[babylonsister]

10. Yes, I did. It was a splash of potential reality, but Matthews isn't

always right! See this-Some Californians might be changing their minds:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3990162&mesg_id=3990162

Also, CA has an open primary where anyone can vote any which way they want; that might not bode well for the Clintons, despite their fast friends.

[K Gardner]

12. I saw that. But I really got the impression that Matthews was talking about more

than donors. You know I'm a walking tinfoil hat :-) I guess I was thinking about those "hidden forces" that pretty much have controlled us, controlled our politics and our economy for decades now. The ones without a name, or face in particular. That's what scares me. That's what I felt he was alluding to.

[babylonsister]

13. Yes, they're out there, no doubt. We just have to hope we can

prevail in beating them back. I see no other option because I sure don't want more of the same.

And PS, this is part of the faction we're up against, all the Dem candidates to some extent:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3990334&mesg_id=3990334

[K Gardner]

17. I saw that a few minutes ago and bookmarked it.. I think we're going to need it. Thanks

again for all the good information and logic you bring to DU, Babylon Sister :-)

:toast:

[KennedyGuy]

15. Matthews? Matthews? well there's an impartial guy

I may as well ask Hannity about Obama

[Yael]

20. I am happy to support Obama's efforts in this.

The nastier she gets, the more I will dig in my heels to do what I can to stop her.

Obama needs help here, he's got it.

[K Gardner]

26. Thanks Yael. There are very few logical people left on this board..

after the latest hyped up Edwards smear, I'm about to disengage from this place. There are logical blogs at Kos and other places without blatant lies bombarding the discussions. My spare time between here and Feb 5th will be spent helping Edwards AND Obama. They're both going to need it, and they're not getting it here. Thank you again for a voice of reason.

[zulchzulu]

3. I fully expect the Clinton camp to go very negative...but guess what...

...the Obama team already has the cannons pointed right back and will take her down piece by piece if need be.

The Clinton era is off the rails.

[thoughtcrime1984]

21. Obama and his supporters are being lambasted for

pushing back with equal force against Clinton and her supporters. Clinton and her people shouldn't have pushed if they didn't want to be pushed back.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. The anti-Clinton HuffPo has an anti-Clinton story?? This is HUGH!!!1!!!!1!!!

ObamaNation will post *anything* by *anyone* if it's a hitjob on Clinton.
:puke:

[dailykoff]

6. I can hear the swiftboats revving up now.

Not helpful.

[Thrill]

7. The Status Quo will attack Happy Warriors for Change

[KennedyGuy]

14. Naturally..anything other that "gosh, isn't Obama great" is an attack

puh-leeze

[Yael]

16. And the scorched earth campaign kicks off in grand fashion

Screw what the country wants, this is about what the Clintons want. Full steam ahead and who cares who they destroy in the process.

They apparently think that fear resonates with people.

I wish them luck with this, because the nastier they go, the more people will flock to Obama.

:hi:

[babylonsister]

23. I think you're right!

:toast:

[fightindonkey]

18. HUFFPO Will Do Anything To Defeat Hillary. 2004 Losers Are Quoted. Classic!

Arianna hates her with a passion. They put up the worst photos of Hillary. Arianna holds no punches on television either. I would take this with a grain of salt.

[madrchsod]

24. well....no shit

as much as i detest hillary i find huffington really biased for a site that wants to be a creditable site when covering the election. sometimes even i say what the fuck...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. I'm afraid they'll be using shovels for digging something but it won't be trenches.

[Yael]

22. Was thinking the same. Wonder where they will hide all of the bodies

[rucky]

25. She has terrible advisors.

All she had to do was be likable to hold her early lead.

[K Gardner]

28. K&R

[Yael]

30. She can repeat what other candidates are saying. She can change her positions.

She can't change WHO she is. Authoritarian "obey me" types appeal to some people. A LOT of people, even. Just not to everyone.

NO MORE DLC CANDIDATES.

Enough.

[AtomicKitten]

29. "gearing up for an extended trench-warfare battle against Barack Obama"

I find a mile-wide disparity between the Clinton camp's cries of being picked on and this mission statement.