Negativity: Who went there first

[emilyg]

Negativity: Who Went There First?
by Mdm Prz 08, Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:00:35 PM EST

Never go negative until you have to: this is common political knowledge and strategy. Political wisdom posits, if you are ahead there is no need to attack, whereas, if you are behind, you must attack. The 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary race has not strayed from this common strategy, with one exception (which will be addressed later).

Contrary to popular belief, Senator Clinton did not "go negative" first, why would she? She was light-years ahead, and floating on a wave of inevitability (whether that was a wise move is debatable). Senator Obama, however, was the newcomer, and was behind in the polls - political wisdom dictated he go negative, which is exactly what he did.

First, let us be clear on the working definition of "negative." Policy distinctions and contrasts are not negative - they are required, and are


http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/6/18035/05918

[Skittles]

1. WHO THE FUCK CARES - JUST FUCKING STOP IT n/t

[emilyg]

3. My suggestion to you -

Don't read my posts.

[Skittles]

4. my suggestion to you

STOP INFLAMING THIS FUCKING CRAP

[Ellipsis]

11. Heh!

:toast:

[Skittles]

14. doesn't anyone else call out these assholes for what they are?

or do they just get chronic re-enforcement from like-minded assholes??????????

[Ellipsis]

24. All the time.

On both issues. It actually used to be worse. I won't put anyone on ignore and try to pick out good info as I can, but this forest fire won't burn out till all the fuel is gone (when the nomination is over). Then... it will be locked sanitized and disposed of as hazardous waste.

I'm sure you could kick a some ass round here, but like a non-profit it will suck the life blood out of you till you stop quivering.

[emilyg]

26. name calling - so mature.

[Ellipsis]

30. nah, it's a moniker.

[Skittles]

40. SOMETIMES it is VERY MUCH DESERVED

FUCKING *CALLED-FOR* - and I call EVERY FUCKING DIPSHIT ON DU WHO HAS MADE A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF THIS PLACE A G.D. ASSHOLE. A S S H O L E.

[emilyg]

21. Relax - I'll continue posting what I find interesting.

[MadBadger]

2. John Edwards was the first one to go negative.

[JI7]

5. when Edwards went negative on Hillary

she returned by attacking Obama.

[anonymous171]

23. Why? Was he her whipping boy or something? Did she not want to attack Edwards for some reason?

[JI7]

33. she didn't view Edwards as having any chance at winning

but while that might have been true she still left the criticisms unanswered. it was Edwards people who were yelling about her being the status quo. and that might have hurt with other voters who were previously undecided.

and then her attacking Obama for things like wanting to negotiate just showed she wanted to attack Obama for anything and cause damage to him.

[JVS]

39. I think we had a rock paper scissors or "mexican standoff" situation

Expectations were that in Iowa, Edwards would win, Hillary would still be the front runner, and Obama would not do well. Instead Obama came out on top, with Edwards second and Hillary just barely behind Edwards at 3rd.

Thus we had: The rising upstart (O), The establishment frontrunner (C), and the guy who failed to meet expectations.

Now, Edwards would have gained nothing by attacking Obama, it would have only helped Clinton, who would have risen above the fray.

Obama couldn't really attack either one without losing his new shine. Edwards couldn't either because while attacking Obama would help Clinton, attacking Clinton could possibly help Obama, and he'd prefer that Obama do it first.

Clinton's best bet was atacking Obama because he was the upstart, and thus threatened her. Attacking Edwards was attacking a faded star.

[DJ13]

6. At this point I dont care who started it

All I know is for the last month (or more) Clinton cannot seem to make a stump speech that isnt half a rant against Obama.

Its getting old, and anyone with half a brain in her campaign should see its not helping her with voters.

[last1standing]

7. MOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM! BARACK'S LOOKING AT ME!!!!

Isn't this post too childish even for GD: P?

[Butch350]

8. I'll Just

...ignor you - and maybe you'll have the sense to go away.

Don't you know that this mule has been beaten to death!

RIP! Anyway...my dad can beat your dad.

[bhikkhu]

9. Rove roasted McCain.

Really, what is with all the "who did what first" posts? If we even could know, would it make a difference.

Changing the subject. look at the current electoral projections:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

All we need is a winner who can swing one more state, just one more, and we have the WH back. Think about that!

[Levgreee]

10. actually, it's better to go first, and also blame your opponent first

people pay attention to "reactionary actions" more, if you strike first you can get away with a lot more

[JVS]

12. Getting dealt an upset in Iowa is certainly a reason she could want to go negative.

She needed NH badly. This is where she first got teary and talked about "I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation, I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down, It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some difficult odds. We do it, each one of us, against difficult odds. We do it because we care about our country. Some of us are right, and some of us are not. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't thought that through." That's a pretty negative thing to say about your opponents, that they don't know what to do and they don't take the process seriously.

[libnnc]

13. It's over.

[JVS]

15. !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzC1xWX2dIA

[gateley]

31. OT

At first glance, I thought that pic of Jennifer Saunders was an old one of David Lee Roth. :eyes:

I love F&S, by the way!

[libnnc]

32. dawn as Amy Winehouse and jen as Britney Spears

I love 'em too. They're doing their last tour right now. I wish I could have seen them.

[gateley]

38. Bwah!

Amy Winehouse -- too funny! Are you SURE Jennifer isn't David Lee Roth? Take another look. :7

[libnnc]

44. oh, its priceless

enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqIWK7d-MQo

[gateley]

45. God -- just the best! Thanks!! nt

[dchill]

37. There IS that....

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

16. Hilbo Balboa drew 'First Blood'

:D

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. Bullshit!! The imaginary sniper did in Bosnia long ago

that blood and her vote for the war in Iraq

[Swamp Rat]

25. LOL! That expression on her face!

:D

[Ichingcarpenter]

29. Not photoshopped but a screen capture.... Obama expression is classy

He is saying WTF? without saying it.

[lligrd]

17. What A Bunch Of Speculative BS

The article attempts to put implied meaning into simple statements made by Obama.

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. The blood in the vote and speech to go to war was drawn years ago

That blood is still being paid everyday by the Iraqis and our troops.

[bobthedrummer]

36. did you see the earlier HRC thread about the Obama "infection"

that was straight out of the NAZI race hygiene school-that got locked, this is mild...

[lligrd]

48. Nope, Thankfully I Missed That One nt

[Political Heretic]

19. First of all, I went to the link, I read the whole piece. Second of all, its completely wrong.

Policy distinctions and contrasts are not negative

That's right, and then the author goes on to list numerous distinctions and contrasts and then label them as "going negative."

The author demonstrates the confirmation bias very clearly as he/she makes some ludicrous stretches to try to come up with "attacks." Obama is quoted as saying "it is important to tell the truth" and the author calls that a negative attack on Clinton. That's almost comical in nature. That's how most of the author's claims go. They are general statements that the author attempts to "spin" and interpret into negative anti-clinton attacks. On the one specific, criticizing her about her war vote isn't "going negative" in the same way that the Clintonian scorched earth, kitchen sink negative strategy of "anything goes" is. It's telling the truth about a policy issue.

Obama isn't the one going around telling everyone Clinton is unelectable, he's not the one saying she only knows how to make "fancy speeches." He's not the one mocking her supporters and implying that they are stupid. He's not the one saying John McCain is more qualified to be President than her. He's not the one allowing surrogates to call him the affirmative action candidate and let it sit out there in silence for weeks before condemning it. In fact, when an obama surrogate called Clinton a monster in an off-the-record comment that was never supposed to be for media consumption (as opposed to Ferraro's deliberate media comments), she was immediately removed from the campaign. It wasn't his satellite campaign staff who tried to make an issue of of his ethnicity by circulating photos and insinuating he was a Muslim. And it wasn't he who parsed his words so carefully so as to leave purposeful room for doubt when asking about the religion of his opponent.

I could go on, but why..

EDIT - I meant to say, out of the entire piece, there was only one example that I found legitimate. That was the D-Punjab memo.... and it an apology came quickly from the candidate himself.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. The RNC! Always. See my journals "The Press v...." all 3 candidates. Its the rw shills that start it

all the time. It spreads from there.

"Attacks against Democrats that appear to come from other Democrats" was Pat Buchanan's number one strategy for CREEP in 1972 and Karl Rove worked with them.

[BlueIdaho]

22. Please try reading

only the black parts of the page.

[bobthedrummer]

28. Since information about the RW DLC, New Democrats and all the other neoconservative policy

supporters inside the Democratic Party (to which HRC and her husband belong and have leadership roles) the answer is obvious-she is a DLC corporate w@#$% and a known liar that hates the traditional Democratic base and some of the experience she brings with her includes working for a covert arms network (LaFarge/Kennametal) that armed Iraq and that her husband's administration (which I voted for twice) refused to prosecute.

Then she endorsed this criminal installed administration's war on Iraq, and lies about that- etc...

How much more negative can you be when you are a RW corporatist neocon policy supporting "Democrat" hanging out with Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Marshall Wittman and all their RW billionaire colleagues???

"Know Your DLC: Current DLC Leadership Team and other Democratic Leadership Council links"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5396391

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. They already know that but chose not to read or

understand logic, math, statistics, history and make informed decisions
based on those premises.

Faith based politics inspired by a flawed education and understanding of history.

[bobthedrummer]

43. My Christian faith is not based on asking God to bless the BFEE or DLC.

I understand spiritually where Reverend Wright was right regardless of how he stated it.
:)

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. I understand his spirituality quest for justice

traveling through this world of woe
that we journey through.

'We are all poor wayfaring stranger
Travelling through this world alone

There is no sickness, toil or danger
In that fair land to which I go'



but that is a Buddhist chant also.

[dchill]

35. Oooh! A post on MyDD by Mdm Prz 08!

A Fair & Balanced blog, to be sure. NOT. Poster does not describe ANYTHING that is close to negative. Not like the Clinton campaign, anyway.

Here's a good one:

On October 12, Senator Obama hit below the belt, questioning Sen. Clinton's legitimacy, experience and merits with one sexist blow:

"The default candidate for Democrats in this race was always going to be Hillary Clinton because she's Hillary Clinton as opposed to Hillary Rodham," he said.

This is sexist and extremely personal at its core - claiming she is where she is because of the man she married and that she does not posses merits of her own. In short, his argument is, were she any other woman, he'd be beating her even with his admitted "modest" experience. Further, it is the sexist equivalent of Ferraro's statement that was deemed racist, offensive and divisive and led to her removal from the campaign.

"...sexist and extremely personal at its core..." Or true, if you want to be accurate.

[Forkboy]

41. I never imagined this thread would lead to all sides pointing fingers at the other.

As if it really mattered who started what. We are where we are...let's deal with that instead of assigning blame for something that only matters to the people who need to play a victim of one side or the other. :shrug:

[cliffordu]

42. Me. It was my fault. I yelled at my mom, a Hillary supporter.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Um, see, that was the problem right there. There WAS NO "wave of inevitability".

She was only "light years ahead" in the minds of her brain trust and the pundit class; folks drunk on the same kind of dubious "conventional wisdom" that had Rudy fucking Guiliani as a shoo-in on the GOP side. (The same sort of "conventional wisdom" which, I suspect, caused Senator Clinton to vote for the IWR in 2002) We were all supposed to believe she had "won" the nomination -and either roll over or jump on the train- before a single vote had been cast.

See, she ran on a wave of inevitability that didn't exist, and this is why die-hard Hillary people are so pissed off; they were told she had it in the bag before a single vote was cast, and so in their minds, by merely winning more Primaries, delegates, and voters, Barack Obama has somehow "stolen" the Nomination from her.