Damage to the Clinton Brand. E.J. Dionne.

[Hamlette]

The Clinton campaign needs to examine not what this fight has done to Obama, but what it is doing to her. For all Democrats, the worst thing that has happened since January is the tarnishing of the Clinton brand. Clinton haters: Don't laugh. The truth is that when this whole thing began, the vast majority of Democrats -- including Obama supporters -- and a fair number of independents had largely positive views of Bill Clinton's record and Hillary Clinton's merits.

snip

As for Hillary Clinton, nobody doubts her intelligence. Those who know her reject the media-built image of Clinton as a cold, calculating machine. Such a person would not inspire the loyalty she has earned from her partisans. If Obama does win, he will draw on her policies, some of which are better crafted than his own.

Yet much of this has been lost. Bill Clinton's approach to the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign's effort to ignore everything it once said about the irrelevance of the Florida and Michigan primaries, Hillary Clinton's willingness to say (or imply) that John McCain is more prepared to be president than Obama -- all this and more have created a ferocious backlash against the Clintons. The result is that when the word "Clinton" crosses their lips, many Democrats sound like Ken Starr, Bob Barr and the late Henry Hyde.

"Chill out" is good advice. Hillary Clinton has every right to keep fighting. But her campaign has suffered from a ricochet effect. Attacks aimed at her opponent and efforts to exaggerate her experience have weakened rather than strengthened her claim to the nomination. This is obviously a problem for Hillary Clinton herself, but it is also very bad for a Democratic Party that cannot afford to see the entire Clinton legacy discredited.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/damag...

[PATRICK]

1. The general sentiment

is of course sane, but this MSM pundit always has a bit of something disturbing in his advice. We don't need poison pills in the spin, although in this case they have more to do with the MSM being alarmed at the possible reaction the new government will evince in regard to the appalling system we have now and would have many pundits wistful for the dutiful, silent, corporate compromising Democratic leadership.
Why not Obama going to Edwards or DK for policy crafting? What exactly will we be missing other than an aura of nostalgia for the lesser gains of another time, a smaller yet vital victory over the system?

The article as usual misses and spins critical points. Through market compromises and force of human personality, Clinton lead us from the brink to hope. Flawed like Moses, some fate has decreed the leadership to a new Promised Land is to be given to someone else after wandering in the desert for eight years because multiple failings of Clinton and the party.

The last I looked, Moses is fairly revered with no editing or pundit propping needed. No it is the short term that the MSM is worried about, a sea change in everything, not just the number of Dem positions that might leave the Third Way a piece of roadkill that will no longer retain the illusions necessary to keep the evils of this society alive enough to bring all to utter, shameful ruin.

No matter what the Clintons may say or do on the campaign trail, their immense contribution and critical success can never be blotted out. Now someone go hold Dionne's hand.

[Hamlette]

2. I'm not so sure

This primary season has shown me a side of Hillary I'd not seen before.

I'm not one of the 28% who'll go to the other camp and I'm all but sure I'll be defending them again, but the way I feel now is I'm sick of defending the Clintons and I'm not going to do it anymore.

Hillary supporters see it differently. It's like religion, we simply do not see the other side's position at all.

He's right about one thing, the Clinton brand is a terrible thing to lose.

[gateley]

3. I think he has a valid point.

Over the years I've always heard how cut-throat the Clintons could be, but on the whole, they (to me) were viewed in a positive light. This campaign is chipping away at that, I think.

[Hart2008]

4. I reject the notion that the Clintons are the Democratic party.

The Clintons are friendlier with the Bushes than they are with the Carters.

The Clintons hire Republicans like Mark Penn, Dick Morris, and David Gergen.

It was in Bill Clinton's Presidency that the Democratic party became the minority party, losing both houses of Congress and never regaining them during his tenure.

It is true the economy was better under Clinton than under the Bushes, but James Buchanan would compare favorably sandwiched in between the Bushes.

The best thing for the party is to move past the tactical, triangulating Clintons and return to being the party of ordinary working Americans.

It is a new day!

[Awsi Dooger]

5. I think this is very accurate

I support Hillary, once Edwards dropped out, but there's no denying she has very little chance at the nomination, and when a high profile favorite loses there's automatic piling on. The Clinton brand will be tarnished and even small gaffes/faults will be exaggerated. The 18-0 Pats went from all time legend status to vulnerable and facing more charges of Spygate, within minutes.

It was all South Carolina. Take away the perception of racism from Bill Clinton and the campaign evolves differently. The irony is it was idiotic to pursue South Carolina, from a Clinton standpoint. The demographics never worked in their favor but because the state was vaulted in the primary ladder they felt compelled to prioritize it.