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

[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.