Hillary as New Nader?

[webfarmer]

So let's say that Obama wins but is so damaged by Clinton's attacks that he loses to McCain.

Does the hate fest that was unleashed on Nader for causing Gore to lose (supposedly) now get directed to Hillary for single-handedly destroying Obama's prospects after it was clear she couldn't win?

The National Organization for Women (NOW) president, Kim Gandy, on Democracy Now! today made me sick by her comments on how Hillary wasn't being negative and that in fact it was Obama who was the mud slinger. She also notes Hillary was always anti-NAFTA. [explicative deleted]

What's sad for me is that it seems that Obama's campaign apparently has decided to take the bait and join the battle on that level. I don't think he can do that without seriously damaging his brand. Maybe being out of demographically unfriendly Pennsylvania will have them re-evaluating that decision.

Comments

[xeipwv.livejournal.com]

I saw that too. I found her statement that Hillary won because Obama's attack ads turned people off to be incredible. From what I've heard, negative ads, though hated, actually work. They play better in some places than others, but PA is one place where they do well.

I found the Pogrebin interview irritating as well. Letty, longtime feminist, seems to want to cross the finish line no matter who the woman candidate is. Letty would probably support Eva Braun if she were running:Letty and Abigail Pogrebin on Now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3wslaUyQg)
(no, I'm not comparing Hillary to Eva, just commenting on the interview.)

I'm going to throw in one piece on Clinton's dirty money deals, though I don't know if it's manufactured or not. I probably shouldn't be spreading these conspiratorial exposés, but I'm a sucker for this stuff. The soundtrack is good.
part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw)
part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&NR=1)

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Negative ads do work. That's why they use them. Of course they work better with some candidate than others and they also work better at certain times than others.

With candidates that already have high negatives, like Hillary, you can only get so much mileage. Conversely with candidates like Obama, you can do a lot more damage.

Also if you do the negative stuff just before the voting starts, that gets the nasty crap out there in a way that cannot be effectively responded too. No time for a reply. I'm sure that's part of the reason that it got particularly nasty in PA, on both sides, just before the voting.

Get that last seed of doubt planted in the voter and the wobbly ones otherwise for your opponent might fall your way or stay home.

[markmc03.livejournal.com]

It is as dirty a process as you can get. McCain should be very easy to knock down. He's a literal dinosaur. This was just a stumble ... and not even much of one at that. It was only a month ago that Hillary had a lead of over 20 percent and she lost that. The fact that she regained one or two percent in the last week because of fighting dirty will not change the fact that Obama still excites people. I grimace when I see the media overplay the stumble, but they seem out to lynch him anyway. Let's see what happens next.

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

What I find interesting is the Pollster.com tracking polls. It seems like the big break was either from his relatively poor showing in the debate (which seemed rigged against him) or it perhaps was his negative response in the final days after that or the negative ads (including the typically GOP obligatory reference to Osama jumping out from under your bed to get you).

I'm hoping that one will show up on YouTube. Haven't been able to find it yet.

[markmc03.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that 'debate'. He was so obviously tired. That is an amazing pace he has to keep up. I sure couldn't do it. But those ABC hosts were absolute turkeys. They were Republican attack dogs.

Hillary didn't even get 10 percent. She is chortling over her 'double digit' victory, but the only double digit includes a decimal. I can't stand looking at her, spinning her loss of 16 percent. Old white blue colour people and people with guns were her base. Just who you want to decide the fate of the planet.

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Given that one of the "reporters" was a former Clinton aide, I'd say that Hillary attack dog might be more appropriate.

You've noted the big debate in the Democrats. Run towards the middle (ala Clintons/DLC/Corporate Sellouts) and focus on swing states or expand the base (Obama/MoveOn.org/Dean) and campaign in all 50 states.