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

[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.