Why did the Clinton campaign do this, and do it so clumsily?

Dunno. But it's nothing new or unexpected, given that the Clinton campaign has been a series of clumsiness and blundering, and errors at tactical and strategic levels. The superdelegates would do well to keep in mind how much advantage Hillary has squandered in this race. Do you really want someone with that incompetent a campaign staff as your party's candidate?

How odd. Kevin thinks the candidate he's "voted off the island" is employing bad strategy.

How honest of Kevin to voice such criticism.

Anything to avoid talking about the disaster of Obama's debate performace...

I think Hillary is just making herself look like the propaganda image the conservatives had created of her by a lot of the stuff she's doing now. It's painful to watch. They laid the trap, and she had plenty of time to see the trap right in front of her, and to figure out that this trap was just what they'd like to do to her, but she walked right into the trap anyway.

Now she's just been walking right into and confirming all the exagerration and bullshit eveyone has heard about her all along. Now people are going to have no reason to doubt a lot of inaccurate stuff they heard about her all along.

I agree. Watching CNN or MSNBC is like watching the media shop for Campaign Clinton. Tweety practically had the shovel out last night for burying Obama. You'd think from viewing the coverage Barack was a child molestor. Bad. Really bad.

Part of it is probably just desperation. Her and a lot of her staff may be just reacting to a lot of things (and in a bad way), instead of thinking things through and coolly solving problems.

Not only will it lead to them making bad choices, but it will make them more likely to take the faulty advice of ostensible friends who actually don't want them to do well.

The performance disaster of the "debate" - if you want to call 90 minutes of verbal mugging as such - was not from the candidates, rather from the clowns posing as journalists...

I'd just note that the media went after Clinton with the same gusto when she was the frontrunner. This isn't an anti-Obama thing, it's an anti-frontrunner thing. It's a much sexier story to beat up on the big guy than the underdog.

Of course this only applies to Democrats. Republican frontrunners are exempt even when they confuse the two major factions in the war we're fighting.

And the reason for that is not an inherent anti-Democrat spin, it's because Republicans understand that your average viewer can comprehend "issues" like lapel pins and scary black preachers, whereas they have no more clue what the difference is between Shia and Sunni than McCain does. The press pushes what sells, period, and what sells is "Democrats are either anti-American traitors or girlie-men and Republicans are big strong codpiece-wearing studs!"

Smells like desperation.

Instead of tapping into the bitterness many Americans feel about the loss of economic and political power to corporate control, the Clinton campaign has decided to question its existence. The Clinton camp either thinks the lower fifty percent are not cognizant of their losses or they are not going to make a difference on election day. Both assumptions would be wrong.

I think the problem is that Clinton can only win now by hoping Obama makes a critical error that knocks him out of contention completely. She probably felt like she couldn't let something like that "cling to guns and religion" line simply coast, because that would only help McCain. She probably felt that she needed to escalate it. The issue is the meme is out there that she's willing to sabotage Obama's chances to improve her own, even in another 4 years, factual or not.

They've debated policy for months now over the course of 21 debates. All that's left is the bullshit of gotcha politics, and that's all the chance Clinton has left. It's really why I think she should bow out. There's no high road to the nomination for her...only the low road.

….Now she's just been walking right into and confirming all the exagerration and bullshit eveyone has heard about her all along….. Swan at 12:32 PM

….Watching CNN or MSNBC is like watching the media shop for Campaign Clinton….steve duncan at 12:33 PM

….the reason for that is not an inherent anti-Democrat spin….Jeff Hebert at 12:37 PM

Jumping on the 'bitter' comment was for the short term gain in PA. Hillary's campaign is looking at immediate needs. This is in keeping with the strategy employed earlier in the year that kept the Clinton camp from thinking beyond Super Tuesday. I don't think I've seen Hillary's camp really embrace a long term view of anything....it's like watching someone with ADD.....

I wish it were over and we could get down to the business of wiping the floor with McSame.

Why did the Clinton campaign do this, and do it so clumsily? The media was doing all their work for them, and if they'd taken the high road ("We should be talking about how to help working Americans, not playing gotcha over a careless remark") they would have gotten way more mileage out of the whole thing. Piling on was such a huge tactical mistake that it makes you wonder if anybody over in Hillaryland knows how to play this game.

That attitude has been on display since the very first caucus. Anybody remember this?

"I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks -- but now the fun part starts," Clinton said. "We're into the last month and we're going to start drawing the contrast, because I want every Iowan to have accurate information when they make their decisions."

And really, Kevin -- we should be surprised at the fact that Clinton & her staff continue to make tactical mistakes like this? Her entire campaign has been nothing if not a series of mistaken assumptions & blunders. The nomination was hers to lose, and it's a virtual certainty that she's going to do just that.

Today's pie flavor is blueberry.

She piled on no more than Bambi piled on in the early debates. And I think it is good that Bambi had to take the fire - shows the superdelegates and the democratic party how he would deal with the repugs in the fall. So in that sense, Hillary gave him an opportunity to show his creds. That he muffed it is his own doing. And the day after moaning sure hasn't helped his case.

At this point HRC needs a successful hail Mary pass. I don't think it poor strategy that the try something risky, which just might work. Electoral dynamics can be pretty unpredictable, so something that looks to be most likely wrong, might just turn out to work.

When you have almost no chance of winning, thats when you make a major throw of the dice.

The answer is that beating Obama has become personal for Hillary and her crew. It's no longer just enough for Obama to lose (because even they can tell that likely won't happen). No, they want to stick the knife in the Obama campaign and they want Obama to see them do it. It makes Hillary and her campaign feel better to attack Obama, even when they'd be better off not doing it.

Mike

"I agree. Watching CNN or MSNBC is like watching the media shop for Campaign Clinton. Tweety practically had the shovel out last night for burying Obama. You'd think from viewing the coverage Barack was a child molestor. Bad. Really bad."

WHAT??? A media shop FOR CLINTON? Remember when Tweety said HRC is a Senator because her hubby cheated on her, and no merits of her own? How about when Tweety got the Ol Tingle Legs when watching Obama speak?
Or how about when Olbermann said last night that HRC was a Republican, and his guest Rachel Maddow blithely agreed and built on that riff for 3 minutes? Have you seen ONE MINUTE of Olbermann's show for the last 4 months?

I think jcricket's answer is probably the likeliest.

My answer may be the gooniest, but I don't think is entirely beyond the pale: Hillary's piling on and anticipating/echoing the GOP talking points on Obama ... because she has a deal with McCain whereby he'll name her his vp candidate.

Advantages for McCain: an additional proxy attacking his real opponent, all Hillary's cash and fundraising sources, further media-enhanced hosannas about McCain's "bipartisan"/"maverick" nature in reaching across the aisle for his #2, stanching the flow of independents/Reagan Dems from McCain to Obama, garnering the hardcore Hillaryites, reinforcing the size and strength of the "national security" hammer with which to maul Obama, increased strength with low-income/low-information voters.

Advantages for Hillary: a chance to pull a Cheney on McCain, likelier access to power than she stands right now running for the Dem nom or even if she wins the Dem nom, sticking it to Obama, opportunity to run as an incumbent VP in '12 or '16 (with the same "bipartisan" cachet as McCain would enjoy in this scheme).

"Why did the Clinton campaign do this, and do it so clumsily?"

Because they're desperate and they can see the end is near. I've never seen anyone SO transparent in their efforts to sound outraged as did Hillary Clinton this past weekend. Shame on her!

I think it is good that Bambi had to take the fire - shows the superdelegates and the democratic party how he would deal with the repugs in the fall. So in that sense, Hillary gave him an opportunity to show his creds. That he muffed it is his own doing. And the day after moaning sure hasn't helped his case.

Apparently, the superdelegates are pretty comfortable with what they see in Obama. Since Super Tuesday, 80 of them have come out in support of him, while Clinton has been able to convince 5 of them that she's the better candidate.

Today's flavor may be blueberry, but it looks like you wind up with a raspberry.

Anything new?

Barack berating would have come one way or the other. Hillary just happened to be the conduit. This fiction that we are a colorblind society is just that. You may quibble over whether the remark or tactic X is racist or not, but from a broader perspective, all that is happening is just a reflection of the current state of race relations in our culture.

Is anybody else surprised that all the manufactured stories being thrown at Obama are failing to move the numbers. It is as though the voters are expecting made up crap out of the media and are for the most part ignoring "bittergate," lapel pins and the rest. That can't good news for the operators of the mighty Wurlitzer.

The debate has proven to many Dems that this needs to come to an end. And the view is that Hillary has become part of the problem, not the solution. TPM has Boren, Nunn and Reich coming out in support of Obama and the latest polls show a narrowing of the gap in PA.

I think that a lot of folks are blaming the messenger for Obama's poor performance. He needs to do better under pressure. He needs to be practicing with his staff throwing really nasty hardball questions at him. He needs to get over being frustrated with them, or at least showing that frustration.

Yes, I'm a Hillary backer. I'm not one of those "take my vote and go home" guys, though. It looks like he will be the nominee, so I really want him to get better at this. It will make him a better candidate and a better President.

Much more to the point is Clinton pushing the William Ayers connection, which is just a minimal association (see latest Alternet.) If Hillary is that willing to damage Obama, her selfishness in putting her own plans before beating the Republicans basically rules her out as a deserving candidate. Indeed, last night I heard Michael Savage playing clips of Hillary pounding the Ayers things while he say "You go girl", telling her to get mean on Obama etc. He doesn't want either to win of course, but naturally admires feral conduct from enemies as well as friends.

When life hands you lemons....

Assuming as I do that this will pass and that Barak will still end up with the nomination, this trial by bullsh*t will have some of the regularly stated benefits. He will get to the fall with more experience at how best to deal with such absurdities.

Hopefully, his team (already showing itself much smarter than his competition) will put together preventative measures that would blunt such silliness after August.

[POed Lib forgot to sign this hateful screed.]

What Dr. Jay said. Arguing over whether Hillary or Obama is treated worse by the media is futile. Whichever is the nominee will see much, much worse before November. Whichever is the nominee is going to have to learn to deal with it.
Make mine rhubarb.

The best explanation is the one we have known all along, just translated into the current idiom. The idea that Hillary will do anything to win should translate to the old phrase, "she says what she thinks the audience wants to hear." In other words, Hillary and her staff think that the American people would not accept the truth as she knows it; instead, they have to pander and simplify. What could this possibly be but elitism, pure and unpasteurized?

The problem for the Clinton campaign is that in trying to guess what it is the people actually want to hear, they imagine that they have to play to all the old racist, aggressive, nasty views that they learned about watching southern whites riot in the 1950s. They understand that time has tempered some of those uglier attitudes, but they still have to guess what level of nastiness they have to play to.

It would, of course, be easier simply to speak of one's own deep principles and hope that this resonates with 51 percent of the voters, or at the least, try to convince people that this is what you are doing. Instead, Hillary's campaign has jumped on every momentary teapot tempest and in so doing, has managed to convince a large number of Democratic voters that she stands for nothing except her own success. I don't really believe that this is entirely the case, but simply note that she has adopted the politics of opportunism that has been so successful over the past couple of decades, and I reject it as a voter.

How can anyone back this bitch? I use the term with great deliberation.

No, you don't. If you did, yours might not be an anonymous post.

Moderator, this kind of stuff doesn't have a place here.

From Paul Lukasiak at firedoglake

"Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

So again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?"

Now Kevin, you need to flip Hillary off and say she nor her supporters are Democrats, then the kool kids will let you play with them.

Often there seems to be an inverse relationship between the perceived level of damage a story is likely to cause Obama and the amount the Clinton campaign will push that story. So they said nothing about Wright when it first broke--they let the press do that for them--but then started pushing it when the interest in the story waned. I figure they didn't think the Bitter story would affect Obama much unless they pushed it...the press probably wouldn't have focused on it as much.

I was rather pleased with Obama's refusal to play along with those idiot's gotcha questions. And when Hillary played their game, turning the gotchas into attacks on Obama -- I was also glad he gave her that "What are you doing?" glare.

It would have been enlightening to see both candidates take a stand against the gotcha questions, forcing the anchors to make fools of themselves for 45 more minutes. Instead, one sold out and played the stupid press game.

I'd love for one person to go on Meet the Press and completely shut Tim Russert down! Dick Chaney could always run rings around him. But just one person to say, "Tim, is that really what you brought me on this show to talk about?" The gotcha press is so condescending.

This really threw me for a loop too. Why did the Clinton campaign do this, and do it so clumsily? The media was doing all their work for them, and if they'd taken the high road ("We should be talking about how to help working Americans, not playing gotcha over a careless remark") they would have gotten way more mileage out of the whole thing.

Look, to begin with, there's very little evidence that "the media was doing all the work for them" in the absence of the clear statement of the Clinton campaign soon after the statement broke that they were going to make a big deal out of it. The reality is that any number of people in the media were actively dismissing it as of any importance -- there was a rather well known panel discussion on CNN with Jeffrey Toobin and Gloria Bolger doing precisely that.

And as far as whether the move by the Clinton campaign was effective or not, who can possibly claim to know the answer to that question? The reality is that the effect of items like this are often simply beyond the ability of polls to measure. Maybe Bittergate doesn't mean anything in isolation. Maybe, though, as part of a pattern in which Wright and Ayers and Obama's debate performance all figure, it adds very importantly to an overall impression.

Really, who knows? The best measure will be to wait until we see the polls out of PA coming up, and the exit polls based on those. That's where some real information might at least be had as to the overall effect of what's gone down since the last primary.

I'll tell you one thing though -- I'm pretty sick of people preaching to us as obvious certainties things that aren't either obvious or certain.

[Then sign your screeds, POed Lib - and by the way, you might say whatever you want, but that is no guarantee that it won't get moderated to the ether.]

"How can anyone back this bitch? I use the term with great deliberation. Now that she is pulling out the Ayers thing, she has forfeited all claims on my respect."

Yes, it's quite clear you are a great respector of women. Your arguement has persuaded me.

I think this is one reason why Obama didn't suffer in the polls.

Bitter-gate was not just his comments. It was his comments and Hillary's response.

He may have lost a few people at first, but then Hillary opened her mouth, and maybe some of those people thought, "well, he's still better than Hillary".

[Deleted]

>[Then sign your screeds, POed Lib]

I do. I always use the same name.

I'm not some anonymous fuckhead like you.

[I have your IP - so don't try lying to me. You have crossed a line and I will delete ALL of your future posts unless you knock it off.]

I find the bitch comment most offensive to dogs.

Frankly0, You are right when you say that the best measure will be found in the polls in PA, but looking at the polls, the whole crap mountain being shoveled at Obama doesn't seem to be moving the voters much at all. Worst still Hillary's already high negatives are rising.

The danger of a candidate shoveling crap herself, as opposed to letting the media shovel, is that a lot of voters, especially primary voters, don't reward the candidate doing the shoveling. If Hillary doesn't go positive today there is a good chance a lot of her supporters will stay home.

You see, even if you hate Hillary, to call her a "bitch" isn't much different from calling Obama a "n****r" which our anonymous poster would probably not have the nerve to do if he/she were a Hillary supporter. It's not that racism is vanquished in this great land of ours, and sexism/misogyny isn't. It's just that misogyny is less afraid to speak out loud. And that's fucking shameful.

And I say this as someone who voted for "Bambi."

When hilbots use the "Obama does it too " ratinaliztion they nevergive examples. Because they can't.

The voters who are suffering from the current political economy are unconcerned about the attacks the candidates make against one another or the distractions of media hacks. Despite the attention given to the 'bitter' comment, to sexist attacks or to racist attacks by the commentariat, most voters want to hear a message about how a candidate is going to provide a government responsive to their needs. Sen. Clinton forsook these messages in her campaign from the very beginning, running as a front runner ready to take over the reigns of the Commander in Chief and government, which did not resonate with the voters. Hillary should have seized the bitterness theme for herself, instead she disputes it, repudiating the sentiment of a great many voters.

Sen. Obama would be best advised not to deviate from his campaign themes of change and discontent in the heartland, which is where a majority of the electorate's attitudes reside.

"The debate has proven to many Dems that this needs to come to an end. And the view is that Hillary has become part of the problem, not the solution. TPM has Boren, Nunn and Reich coming out in support of Obama and the latest polls show a narrowing of the gap in PA."

That's true. Obama's complete breakdown has convinced many Dems that HRC must go. Now!
Why the hell would I give one tiny rat's ass what Boren, Nunn, Reich or whoever kidnapped Josh Marshall has to say about who the next Dem candidate should be?

Really Wonkie, well here's your wish granted, a whole slew of examples.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

"I find the bitch comment most offensive to dogs."

Heh. That is pretty funny Dilbert.

Everyone starts the campaign on the same footing. Hillary began as a Democrat, running against other Democrats. She had advantages: huge money, huge name recognition, and a dedicated cult of entirely entranced followers who were willing to do anything, and I mean anything, for her.

On the negative side, she has shown, for years and years, starting with HealthCareReform, that she has no idea how to run a long campaign. And she has demonstrated, over and over and over, that her selection of staff is extremely extremely poor. In this case, both tendencies combined to take her from She Who is Inevitable to Hillary the Republican.

I am not NOT fond of the use of Swift Boat tactics by the Republicans. When a Democrat uses them against other Democrats, I become POSITIVELY DERANGED in my ire. That's where Hillary is right now - she is doing and saying things about Obama that McCain will not say. Why should he? Hillary is doing his work for him.

When she loses the primary battle, she had better think 2 times, 3 times, 4 times about her next campaign. I will never vote for her in a campaign against other Democrats. She will never win another national contested primary.

In the GE, I vote Democratic. Even for her.

But never another primary.

And as for the B word, as Jacob Marley said, "I wear the chains I forged in life." In Hillary's case, she gets the name she has so RICHLY earned.

Well Kevin, Obama has certainly changed the tone, hasn't he? Just look at POed Lib, he or she is certainly not alone here, or elsewhere for that matter. I wonder what it is about Obama that enables his supporters to rise above this sort of negative rhetoric and gotcha games? Perhaps it's the hope and change message?

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Frankly0, You are right when you say that the best measure will be found in the polls in PA, but looking at the polls, the whole crap mountain being shoveled at Obama doesn't seem to be moving the voters much at all.

Looks like I have to repeat myself.

We won't know anything useful until we get results on Tuesday. Which polls do we believe in PA? The many which supposedly show the race converging, or the poll by the most reliable pollster of all, SUSA, which shows no such thing, and a very large gap remaining?

Given the enormous differences in the polls, how can one possibly expect that a relatively small but decisive difference -- a swing of 5%, for example -- could be picked up reliably?

And, just to give a sample of what polls might be showing -- or might not -- we get this report from Gallup on its latest tracking poll:

Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows a tightening of the national Democratic race, with Barack Obama now holding just a 3-percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton, 47% to 44%. These results are based on interviewing conducted April 15-17, with Thursday night's interviewing the first conducted following the April 16 debate in Philadelphia. The initial indications are that Obama may have been hurt by the debate, which was noted for its negative tone and focus on the candidates' recent "gaffes" and Obama's associations with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers (a former member of the radical Weather Underground group). In Thursday night's interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night's interviewing since April 3. That stronger showing for Clinton helped to snap Obama's streak of statistically significant leads in the three-day rolling averages Gallup reports each day. Until today, he had led Clinton by a statistically significant margin in each of the prior 11 Gallup releases.

So did the debate really, really hurt Obama? Did it do so in part because of the Bittergate issue, which might not even have been brought up if the Clinton campaign hadn't pushed it? Or was it the Ayers issue, or the Wright issue, or all of them? Or was it just a statistical fluke?

Who on God's earth knows?

So I wouldn't be quoting polls at me to "demonstrate" anything about the effect of any particular thing the Clinton campaign has done.

Latest Gallup poll has Hillary within 3 points of Obama, so I'd say they knew they had to push the story or the media would have dropped it over the weekend.

Why?

Because it works, that's why. It sways the millions of idiotic 'Muricans who think wearing a flag lapel pin and "believing in the flag" -- whatever the _____ that means -- are important issues. These people are an embarassment, but lots of them vote. Enough so that this sort of politics is effective and will always be a weapon of choice.

jcricket: Jumping on the 'bitter' comment was for the short term gain in PA. Hillary's campaign is looking at immediate needs. This is in keeping with the strategy employed earlier in the year that kept the Clinton camp from thinking beyond Super Tuesday. I don't think I've seen Hillary's camp really embrace a long term view of anything....it's like watching someone with ADD.....

Bingo. And this astoundingly persistent inability to look six seconds down the road has sunk her campaign.

As far as Obama's performance in the 'debate', the lesson to be better prepared for the mud can be learned.

The idea that Hillary won the debate made me think of a comment Lily Tomlin made back in the Super Woman phase. The gist of it:

The problem with winning the rat race is that it makes you a rat.

Hillary's performance in this campaign, her staffing problems and messaging have been a huge disappointment to me. I know she's very smart. It seems she too often doesn't know how to use it.

"Well Kevin, Obama has certainly changed the tone, hasn't he?"

You Klintoon KultWacks certainly take the cake. Your little scumbag candidate Billary spends her days telling Americans how qualifies John McCain is to be president, and you blame Obama? Obama gets to defend himself, even against traitors in his own party like Billary.

You Klintoon KultWacks need to look long and hard in the mirror. There's a number of goats and cows in the well, and they got there because Hillary put them there.

The negative tone is all Hillary's fault.

ALL.

As far as Obama's performance in the 'debate', the lesson to be better prepared for the mud can be learned.

The idea that Hillary won the debate made me think of a comment Lily Tomlin made back in the Super Woman phase. The gist of it:

The problem with winning the rat race is that it makes you a rat.

Hillary's performance in this campaign, her staffing problems and messaging have been a huge disappointment to me. I know she's very smart. It seems she too often doesn't know how to use it.

Please dont repeat the inane FUX NOIZE talking points. Why Liddy Bitter Bourne, a conservative floater, has said pretty much the same thing. People resorting to arms and having a civil war because of political discourse.

Besides didnt Obama gain the backing of a pro-gun group after his remark?

"Bingo. And this astoundingly persistent inability to look six seconds down the road has sunk her campaign."

I was going to say exactly that.

I play chess and go. Anyone who does learns quickly that you must think "I move there. What is the next thing that will happen?"

That works for 2 games.

Then you think, "OK, how do I respond?"

Finally, if you continue to play, you know what will happen 2, 4, 6 moves down, and you begin to win.

Hillary and her Klueless Klutzes do not seem to think even to the next move. They decided that she would win Feb. 5, and no more plans were necessary. That's planning the next move.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to have a bit of strategy in his planning. He planned the campaign better. He planned to win small states that Hillary was ignoring. He planned Feb. 5, and the next 10 campaigns.

He is a better strategist than is she.

Again, we have short-term thinking here. "I'll blame Obama for 'bitter.'" She never seems to think "I wonder what people will make of my blaming Obama?"

Short-term thinking.

POed Lib=an Obama supporter (which may or may not be true), therefore all Obama supporters are PO'd lib? (More) shades of Joe McCarthy.
The bottom line for me is what's been repeatedly pointed out above. Hillary has run an abysmally bad campaign, whereas Obama's has been both effective and efficient. No matter what one may think about the positions, acquaintances, backgrounds, debating skills, sex or race of either of them, that seems indisputable. But, please...feel free to argue otherwise.

And, just to give a sample of what polls might be showing -- or might not -- we get this report from Gallup on its latest tracking poll...

Of course a national poll like that is next to meaningless, as there's no national election to determine the nominee. Furthermore, there's no information provided to indicate what percentage of respondents tuned into the debate, nor is there any way -- as you point out -- of knowing which, if any, of the issues raised contributed to the tightening of the numbers in the poll. The intraparty national polls are about as useful as a Ouija board when it comes to determining significance.

What FranklyO said, above. Whatever you may think about these matters (I think they're unfortunate), I know of no reason to assume that the press corps was going to drive the "guns and religion" story. And yet Ezra and Kevin both accept this assumption as if it were obvious.

I think Clinton's strategy is working and that strategy includes forcing Obama to explain who he is and his past actions and statements. Everyone keeps bitching about the debate and how it was a "gotcha" fest with little or no discussion about "helping the american people." Give me a break!!!!!

The debate showed that Obama cannot stand the heat. He looked weak and tired and these questions and challenges to his bid for the presidency will continue at a much higher pace during the general election if he is the Democratic nominee. This is politics people and politics is dirty business.

Most Americans don't know who Obama is and questions about his patriotism and his past are fair game and they will come up in more detail during the general election. There are no presumptions in politics; facts, questions and answers always rule the day.

Most Americans don't know who Obama is and questions about his patriotism and his past are fair game and they will come up in more detail during the general election. There are no presumptions in politics; facts, questions and answers always rule the day.

This is absolutely correct. I, for one, have never heard him state that he's unequivocally opposed to goatfucking & the dismemberment of small children, and I resent the fact that Gibson & Stephanopoulos wasted precious time talking about Iran & Iraq when they should've been getting to the bottom of this instead.

Make your voice heard -- call the Director of Political Programming at ABC -- 1 800 EAT-NOEL.

We can't afford to stand by idly while some sadistic zoophile strolls into the White House.

Noel on April 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM:

There are no presumptions in politics; facts, questions and answers always rule the day.

Oh God, that's funny...OhmidoubleGod! You're actually serious, aren't you, Noel?

Hillary's performance in this campaign, her staffing problems and messaging have been a huge disappointment to me. I know she's very smart. It seems she too often doesn't know how to use it.

I think, depressingly, she's smarter than you realize. A friend of mine involved in politics suggested what her strategy is: keep pounding the negative and discourage Obama voters from going to the polls. It sure has worked for the Republicans in general elections, so I'm sure it will work in the primaries too. Unfortunately.

POed Lib - the flavor of today's pies being thrown is supposed to be blueberry. Your crazy as bananas cream pie is not allowed in this contest. How could you say that? I know that you are quick to temper, but really, I've never seen you sink that low.

Sen. Clinton's poor campaign strategy can be laid at the feet of her organization of DC and Wall Street insiders. From day one they acted as if Hillary had already won the nomination. Their assumptions were the Democratic voters would fall in line, so they had nothing else to fall back on after Sen. Obama's surprising Iowa win except to go negative, which has always worked for them in the past. Hillary and her close circle of wealthy and powerful advisors are either clueless about or have underestimated the discontent of a majority of Americans. They assumed Democratic voters would obediently support their candidate rather than make a choice based on their discontent, like in 2004, when they smeared Dean in order to hand the nomination to one of the members of their own circle.

"but really, I've never seen you sink that low."

Thanks for your recipe hints. Indeed, I am normally the soul of thoughtful clarity. I am becoming very disgusted however.

I am enthused about hard-fought campaigns. I revel in the give and take of the campaign rhetoric. BUTTTTTTT...

I simply hate hate hate this Swift Boat shit. Just hate it. And when I see that kind of swill coming out of Hillary's mouth, I get pissed.

OK, I agree that the Repukeliscum will be running this shit this fall, and we should all get ready of SHIT CITY. But WHY does Hillary need to start it now, on a fellow Democrat?

I don't think it is true that the media would have kept the story alive if Hillary did not jump on it. All those bromides such as the opponent should not do anything if the other guy is in trouble are not universal rules. You need to assess each situation independently. In this case, I think the story would have died down pretty quickly without Hillary fanning it. Of course, Hillary is not the best messenger. She got bruised a bit in the process, and Obama got some sympathy, but I think it needed to be done. And even if it is debatable in hindsight, it is hard to see how it was clearly the wrong call at the time.

Frankly0, I'll see your Gallup poll and raise you the latest Newsweek poll. It shows Obama up by 19 points. Interesting thing about the Newsweek poll, it was taken over two days straddling the debate. No difference between the days.

The polls this year have been useless, so I am not going to claim Newsweek is any better than Gallup, but it gives us something to think about.

Here is the link. http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721?from=rss

Ron,
You need to read the fine print on the Newsweek poll. They only sampled some 580 or so registered or leaning dems (giving +/- 4% error), and then they corrected their numbers to reflect population demographics - which is an indicator that their sampling method was flawed.
Also the question was who do you think will win the nom, not who would you vote for.

optical weenie,

I never claimed the Newsweek poll was the cat's meow, but I have never had much confidence in Gallup.

"You need to read the fine print on the Newsweek poll. They only sampled some 580 or so registered or leaning dems (giving +/- 4% error), and then they corrected their numbers to reflect population demographics - which is an indicator that their sampling method was flawed.
Also the question was who do you think will win the nom, not who would you vote for."

Clearly you know very little about polling. ALL POLLS are correctly for population demographics. ALL POLLS.

ALL POLLS are correctly for population demographics. - POed

Eats, shoots, and leaves.

I'm for population demographics too! Its pc!

agree...these strategists and their short term tactics are revealing. No one thinks anything through these days...But good for Obama (not that I think his team is much smarter)...at any rate Clinton is getting negative blow back on this one.

"and then they corrected their numbers to reflect population demographics - which is an indicator that their sampling method was flawed.":

Give me a break. The Newsweek poll may or may not be flawed but it's not because they "corrected their numbers." All polling organizations have various algorithms they use. Some of these algorithms may or may not be as accurate as others, but the fact of their existence is not a sign that the poll is flawed. That's just the nature of polling.

Ah oh, now she's done it.

Case in point: Link Obama with controversial figures to call into question his fitness for the presidency. Sen. Joe McCarthy did it by impugning the patriotism of innocent Americans. It worked for him -- for a while.

Guilt by association is being tried again.
Lesson Three: Getting too big for your britches is costly.

Frederick Douglass, former slave, abolitionist and human rights champion, could have told Obama that there would be days like this.

This from WP op-ed columnist Colbert I. King

Poor Hillary, a little to desperate. She beginning to piss off everyone now, particularly the African American vote.

Karl Rove politics belongs in the same waste bin as McCarthy politics, because it was made of the same lethal doctrines. AND because: It worked for him -- for a while. fit both men equal as well.

This really threw me for a loop too. Why did the Clinton campaign do this, and do it so clumsily?

It seems fairly obvious to me: you leave the attacks like this to your proxies and the media press on with your main message when you have a positive message about your candidate. The problem with the Clinton campaign is that its has no message any more, its just bouncing along from one clumsy attack on Obama, either direct or by implication, to the next. The Clinton campaign was so sure it would win and have things locked up early in the primary season that it has been flailing since it was clear that wasn't the case.

Huge tactical mistakes seem to be a hallmark of the Clinton campaign, which should make thinking people worry about how she would perform as President.

Remember, SHE chose Mark "forget the caucuses" Penn as her chief strategist.

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10