Hillary following the Rove playbook: A) Attack your opponent's strengths and B)....

[scheming daemons]

... accuse the opponent of the things your campaign is doing.


Under point "A":

One of Obama's strengths is that he is a "man of the people". A populist, not wealthy by Washington standards, and used to working with poor and downtrodden.

So.... to attack that strength, the Hillary campaign turns it on its head and claims Obama is "out of touch" with ordinary folks and an "elitist".

Another strength is his public speaking ability and his ability to get people passionate about politics again. So.... to attach that strength, the Hillary campaign calls Obama a "plagiarizer" and a "cult leader".... all the while, plagiarizing from other politicians in just about every speech she gives.


Go back in time... how did Rove attack John Kerry... a verified war hero? By spinning the narrative to claim he was anything but.

How did he attacke Al Gore... a verified trail-blazer on issues like global warming and technology advancement (i.e. Internet)? By spinning the narrative to claim he was exaggerating his life story and accomplishments.

This is how Rovian politics works.

What Obama did recently was point out how Rove was able to get "ordinary folks" to ignore Washington's failures on the economy by using wedge-issues like abortion, gun rights, flag burning, etc to get these folks thinking about anything BUT the economy.

This is what pissed Hillary's campaign off more than anything. He exposed the "playbook". And how does Hillary respond? By waving around her "pro-gun" creds. Exactly how Rove would've played it.




Under point B:

How did Hillary respond to being "caught red-handed" lying about sniper fire? By accusing Obama of being a liar.

How did Hillary respond to stories showing how Obama is being financed by small donations and she's being financed by big-time donors? By pointing out the handful of large donations he's received.




She's engaging in the politics that we all claim to hate. And her supporters cannot even see it for what it is - but if it was coming from a Republican, they would be up in arms about it.

[Avalux]

1. Revolting, isn't it?

I was listening to her campaign's comments about Obama this morning and was laughing at the projection - they were describing their own campaign.

Those of us who know this tactic can see right through it. Unfortunately, low information voters might be hoodwinked by it.

I hope I don't have to make a choice about voting for her in the GE because I don't think I can at this point.

[Kurovski]

8. I'll kill my own soul to vote for her in the General if I have to.

The Supreme Court is too important, and if that's the only thing the ever gets done, it will have been worth it in some measure.

Please pardon my hyperbole, but I feel it is very important. If only just for one thing: the sake of the women in this country and for those of us who love them.

[Cheap_Trick]

9. Don't be too sure that H(R)C is going to fight for women

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5260599

This is in regards to her church:
Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

>snip<

Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons' approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with the Christian right.

>snip<

At the heart of The Family's American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family's young women's group. And, at The Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.

>snip<

Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

[Kurovski]

12. I'm not sure of anything.

It's all hedging of bets at this point.

[grantcart]

2. Of course one of the problems using this theory in the primaries is that

you then have to turn around and somehow get these people to vote for you in the GE.


If some miracle were to occur and HRC got the nomination how exactly is she planning on getting all of these people that she has demonized to vote for her? Could she even carry San Francisco now?

[40ozDonkey]

5. They don't care, Hillary supporters know she's going to lose.

They only use "unity" as a debate tactic, that should speak volumes to you.

[GoldieAZ49]

3. Both A and B are true - is it 'rovian' to point out the truth?

[scheming daemons]

6. It's "rovian" to attack your opponent's strengths and accuse your opponent of your own shortcomings.

I didn't say it wasn't effective...


But it is cynical and exhibits everything that is wrong with politics.


...and here's hoping the American people start to see through it, unlike in 2000 and 2004.

[Emit]

18. Do you really not get the point the OP is making?

Or are you just not willing to admit it? Serious question.

[CK dexter]

4. It's true, and the MSM is playing the same game...

It's pretty bizarro world and downright repulsive. The same MSM commentators who accused Obama of talking over the heads of the American people, of using too many big words and ideas and not enough brightly colored pictures for the poor, stupid, public are now accusing him of condescension.

What's wonderful is that Obama has invented a new playbook. When they accuse you of their own flaws, stand up, don't apologize, be confident and forthright, and call them on it. An idea so crazy it just might work!

[Kurovski]

7. " ...supporters cannot even see it for what it is"

I think it's called cognitive dissonance.

We all do it to some degree. It's painful to struggle ones way out of it, I'll vouch for that.

[JasonHill]

11. agreed

confirmation bias too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[anonymous171]

10. Rovian politics are why this country is in such bad shape. We need to move beyond them.

[CJCRANE]

13. Good analysis nt

[wiggs]

14. The list of good people who have been subjected to un-democratic

campaigns of misinformation to deceive the public is long. This underhanded, ruthless diminishment of public discourse is not limited to campaigns (Gore, Cleland, Kerry, Obama etc) but includes anyone expressing dissent with those in power (O'Neill, Clarke, Plame, Wilson, etc etc) because the ends justify the means with these kinds of people. Then you end up with those prosecuted and/or fired based on misinformation and abuse of power (Seigelmann, 7 AGs).

This tactic is to be scorned and boo'd when seen on either side. It has diminished us as a nation.

Good post and I hope we see it called more often by candidates and pundits.

[Califooyah Operative]

15. Bingo! nt

[Scurrilous]

16. K & R

:thumbsup:

[democracy1st]

17. thanks

:kick: