Clinton pollster urges her to ‘completely abandon her positive campaign’
Reasonable Democrats can disagree about the merit of Hillary Clinton’s negative campaigning over the last few months. Clinton supporters argue that the attacks against Barack Obama have been fair and accurate, and if he can’t overcome the harsh criticism now, he’ll wither against the GOP in the fall. Obama supporters argue, of course, that the attacks have been counter-productive, inaccurate, and eerily similar to rhetoric coming from the right.
What seems far less debatable is the reality of the negative dynamic. Clinton campaign staffers were themselves referring to the attack plan as far back as February as the “kitchen-sink strategy.” Some party leaders referred to the “Tonya Harding option.” Putting aside whether the attacks are fair, warranted, or effective, they exist. Indeed, in some ways, they’re a selling point — the Clinton campaign has subtly argued, “We’re hitting Obama hard now, but we’ll hit McCain even harder later.”
Given this, I was confused by this Washington Post piece from Doug Schoen, Bill Clinton’s former pollster and a former partner of Mark Penn. As Schoen sees it, Clinton’s problem is that she’s refused to go negative.
Hillary Clinton took an important step Monday toward winning the Democratic nomination by launching an ad targeting Barack Obama’s recent comments about working-class voters clinging to “guns or religion.” The ad is a marked change from her recent determination to use a positive message until the Democratic convention, but for Clinton to capture the nomination she needs to completely abandon her positive campaign and continue to hammer away at Obama. […]
As the underdog, Clinton’s positive message will not work unless she is able to undermine Obama’s candidacy…. Although voters and the media look favorably upon a positive campaign message, and Clinton is acutely conscious that too much negativity and too many personal attacks will hurt her party in November, a positive message is simply not enough to alter the race at this point. It is too late for Clinton to wait for Obama to make another mistake.
If Schoen wanted to argue that Clinton needs to be even more negative, I’d understand his point. I think he’d be wrong, but the argument is not, on its face, foolish.
But Clinton “needs to completely abandon her positive campaign”? She’s shown “determination to use a positive message until the Democratic convention”? I don’t imagine even Clinton’s most enthusiastic fans would agree with this.
John Heilemann has a fascinating item on McCain in the new issue of New York magazine, and he spoke with one leading Republican Party official about how the GOP would go after Obama in the general election. “Our strategy will look a fair amount like the one that Hillary is running against him now,” the official said.
If Clinton were running an exclusively “positive campaign,” somehow I doubt Republican officials would make a comment like this.
To be sure, going negative can work. Before the March 5 contests last month, Obama was closing the gap quickly, Clinton went aggressively negative, and stopped his momentum. She won Ohio and Texas, despite being outspent. But Schoen seems to believe that this simply didn’t happen, which is just odd.
Just as importantly, Schoen brushes past the consequences of the attacks we’ve already seen.
While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992. […]
In the new poll, 54 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton, up from 40 percent a few days after she won the New Hampshire primary in early January. Her favorability rating has dropped among both Democrats and independents over the past three months, although her overall such rating among Democrats remains high. Nearly six in 10 independents now view her unfavorably.
A more relentlessly negative style would likely make these results even worse.
Now, Schoen may believe Clinton doesn’t have any other choice, and he may very well be right. But for him to argue that Clinton hasn’t gone negative in recent months casts doubt on the rest of his thesis. (Josh Marshall was slightly less charitable: “But, seriously, what is Schoen smoking?”)
“She won Ohio and Texas”
If you’re going to keep saying this, can you at least address the question of how one can reasonably argue that Clinton “won” Texas?
The problem for me with negative campaigns is that the candidates are not telling me what they will do. All I get is that they don’t like the other guy, not why I should vote for them instead
I don’t imagine even Clinton’s most enthusiastic fans would agree with this.
Wanna bet.
Clintons dead-enders, rival Dick Cheney’s 18%, for outright mind-numbing ignorance.
Sorry if this is not politically correct, but I’m getting tired of her cycle-of-violence strategy. Attack, claim victimhood, repeat. She reminds me more and more of Lady Macbeth:
. . . Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty.
I truly believe Schoen, Penn and the lot represent the loser wing of the Democratic party, and that a lot of Obama’s support is backlash against old losing ways. It should go without saying that the more you adopt Republican tactics, the more you become Republican, which makes no sense to someone who doesn’t like Republicans.
These people are insane. They don’t care about anyone but themselves. All these years crazed Republicans were telling us the Clintons would do anything for power, all these years I vehemently argued with the people who would say something so stupid…and it turns out they were freaking right.
Schoen: “Although voters and the media look favorably upon a positive campaign message, and Clinton is acutely conscious that too much negativity and too many personal attacks will hurt her party in November, a positive message is simply not enough to alter the race at this point. It is too late for Clinton to wait for Obama to make another mistake.”
Correct on all counts. And what normal, rational people who actually care about the poor, the middle class, civil right and liberties, our soldiers, our Constitution, progressive policies in general and health of the Democratic party do, in such a case, is accept that they’ve lost.
Schoen knows Clinton’s gone negative, it’s all part of the same stupid “strategery.”
The implication is that the Clinton campaign has actually been softer on Obama than they should, and now…NOW…the gloves come off. As bad as things have gotten in the Clinton camp, if they can get worse, then Obama must have some serious skeletons in his closet, right? RIGHT?
For the Hillary fans or the fence-sitters, or at least the stupid Hillary fans or fence-sitters, it sets off a wave of expectation: “ohmigod, what do they have on Obama NOW?!?!? What juicy tidbits o’ gossip have they been sitting on?” And the lazy putzes in the media start breathlessly talking about what Hillary might have on Obama, THEY start making insinuations the Clinton camp has to neither confirm NOR deny, and a wave of guilt-by-suspicion begins, and if through all of this, Obama makes another innocent gaffe like “bittergate” then THAT becomes the narrative, and that mysterious packet of campaign-ending evidence that we’ve never seen and don’t even know for sure exists becomes unnecessary. Kinda like the Republican Congressmen, I forget which loser it was, claiming that Bush has a plan to get us out of Iraq, but he’s not going to share it with us until he’s ready because Democrats would blow it.
And of course, to the Hillary fans or fence-sitters who fancy themselves as smart, this is their opportunity to kick back and enjoy the spectacle, like spreading a rumor in high school and watching it spread like SARS. They get to say stupid things like “politics ain’t a tea party,” or “if Obama can’t stand the heat…”
Meanwhile Obama will do what he’s always done, keep cool, keep talking passionately to the throngs who come to see him, raise more money, inspire more believers, and make Clinton look even more negative, foolish and, dare I say, bitter? – than she already does.
for one last time SHE DID NOT WIN TEXAS
To echo JD above, Clinton may have won the delegates in the popular vote portion of the Texas primary, but Obama walked away with more delegates following the caucus portion.
Continuing to say that she “won” Texas is incorrect.
And if Clinton wants to convince the Democratic leadership and superdelegates to end the reprieve they’ve given her until the last primary, this is absolutely the way to make them close down this race in a hurry. Then she, her campaign and her less reality-based supporters can scream “victim” and “disenfranchisement” until the end of their days, completely unable to see how their own inexcusable actions brought it all about.
Needless to say, the constant negative campaigning by the Clintonites simply sets the stage for McCain’s minions. Even if every single negative attack is rebuffed, it lays the groundwork for the Republican smear machine to do its work. It’s no accident that Rush Limbaugh saved Clinton in Texas (where she lost, BTW).
Fortunately for us there are several million Obama supporters who will gladly fork over what they can to make the consultant class go down the toilet. We will flush those turds easily once Clinton is finally crushed under the weight of her own dishonesty and incompetence.
I think this leak/story by her current pollster is simply prepositioning for her loss. I.e., she can argue that she was told to go super-uber-nuclear negative, but because she’s such a die-hard Dem above all else she decided not to. Therefore she’s actually a good person, and not at all to be openly scorned and reviled when she returns to the Senate Caucus.
Caucus? Did I say Caucus? Isn’t that un-American?
It always amazes me how so many on here are blinded by Obama and his message of hope. He can’t win the general election against McCain so therefore it will be 4 more years of Bush policies. Most avid Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama and neither will the blue collar workers in the states he needs to win.
Four hours ago Reuters reported that “Obama widened his national lead over Clinton to 51 percent to 38 percent”.
Whatever Hillary’s doing, it doesn’t seem to be working.
Attacking people with the truth is one thing. That I can get behind. In fact, I don’t even consider that “negative”. For instance, poking McCain with his 100-year gaffe or his Sunni-Shia confusion would be simply using facts against him. No problem there.
Attacking people with lies and smears is something else. The whole “bitter” flap, for instance, is absolute Faux “News” style smearing. So is the Vince Foster “controversy”. So is playing up the fact that McCain is over 70. I have no patience for any of that stupidity. That’s the main reason I despise the GOP, and why I am losing my respect for Clinton. They both use those tactics.
And the Clinton-troll excuse about how they’re just doing to Obama what the GOP would be doing to him (in fact, is doing already) is the exact wrong way to justify it to me. The fact that they’re emulating the forces of evil just makes them evil.
Obama has already proven that he knows how to throw the GOP’s smears back in their faces, so Clinton is not subjecting Obama to some kind of acid test by playing the same game. She is only making the GOP stronger. We need to fight back tooth and nail, yes. But as Al Franken so aptly pointed out in “Lying Liars”, we need to do that with the truth. Not with lies and smears.
I’m sorry, Comeback Bill (#13), but I just can’t believe the Clinton supporters would be as stupid or blind to their own interests as you suggest. Just as we will support the Democrat, so will they.
Perhaps this position heralds an even more visicious negative campaign to start after the debate tonight.Remember when Clinton was ‘honored ” to campaign with Senator Obama and then hit the airwaves with viscious negative ads . The Clinton’s are unable to grasp Americans are looking for change and hope in the future. Not the Mean Machine of the old politics.For some reason this reportedly intelligent elitist is unable to grasp what grass root Americans want. the clintons will be very BITTER when all is lost.
Wow. ALL Clinton supporters really are morons. From top to bottom.
This is what you get when an organization has no ability to run its affairs, has been out-thought and out-fought, and is now in the process of losing all moral authority.
Okay, Clinton, enough with the vetting already!
Hillary can’t even win the nomination. It’s pretty hard to be elected president when your not on the ballot.
Comeback Bill@13, John McCain is just Bob Dole, spelled funny. That’s why Clinton is so desperate to get the nomination. With 81% saying we’re going in the wrong direction and Bush and Company being the author of our movement that way, McCain has a poor Fall ahead of him. Even the GOP moneybags won’t back him. “Kamikaze Play: McCain up the middle, the rest of the team off the field!” (To paraphrase 1964 Bill Cosby.) As for Schoen, that’s just the mad rush of the mirage crazed desert rat, convinced that water lies just over the next sand dune. Nearly done.
#17 Ed
You live in the same hope and dream world Obama lives in.
I won’t vote for him thats for sure.
One of the things that will happen as Hillary goes increasingly negative is that Obama will increasingly be seen as the outsider, running against Washington.
Once it’s plain that Obama is under attack by the Washington Elite, the people will flock to his side, whether they absolutely love him or not. The people know that Washington has been rigged for a long time, and the Perot factor* will come into play. This is an election for the record books.
* Perot would have won in 1992 if the people who wanted him to win had actually voted for him, instead of voting for their second choice out of fear of “throwing their votes away”. He was a messenger for the people saying “Washington needs to be burned to the ground”.
#13: It always amazes me how so many on here are blinded by Obama and his message of hope.
Nice to see good ol’ “Comeback Bill,” has returned to demonstrate the complete moron stupidity of the average Clinton idiot, once again proving computers are so user-friendly that bipeds lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use them.
I’ve been wondering for awhile now why the candidate with the biggest negative numbers going in – i.e., starting out with the most voters who will not vote for her under any circumstances – thinks that she can somehow pull this campaign off by increasing her negatives among people who were original on her positive side. Maybe she wishes that, as in grammar, a double negative will miraculously turn into a positive. Too bad for her – wishing won’t make it so.
Comeback Bill said: I won’t vote for him thats for sure.
Thank you. The participation of drooling retards isn’t needed.
Comeback Bill said: “[Obama] can’t win the general election against McCain so therefore it will be 4 more years of Bush policies…
I won’t vote for him thats for sure.”
Apparently “4 more years of Bush policies” is bad, but not bad enough to vote for Obama.
Got it.
Hey, people, I have a suggestion. I’ve decided to reform from replying to trolls, and I think we should all do that, really. So what say we have a moratorium from replying to comeback bill, and mary, and anyone else who comes here to act like an ass? Let’s leave them to wallow in their own filth and get back to the adult discussions they’re incapable of having.
It’s not like they’re either rational or intelligent, so replying to their nonsense isn’t going to accomplish anything. Besides, you know as well as I do that they’re just here to feed on the attention. Let’s starve them to death.
It’s a bit curious that HRC’s “going negative” in the Rev. Wright flap, which she helped to ratchet up, apparently helped Obama, not her. His poll numbers increased. Same will probably be true for the “bitter” flap.
Going negative might be more helpful for Hillary if she were perceived as having clean hands in this campaign, and if the going negative were based on substantive issues. (The way I think John McCain can be whalloped in the GE.)
But now she has a tainted candidacy, from her voting record on Iraq, Iran, cluster bombs, and telecom immunity to her self-inflicted damage through gratuitously lying, not just once but many times and with obvious ease, as well as claiming experience she just doesn’t have and ugly campaigning. There’s nothing there for most people to champion while she goes negative. She’s a self-created villain to many voters now.
I haven’t seen any figures on this phenomenon in politics other than general ones, but at least in the movies, nobody cheers when the villain beats the tar out of the good guy. The tension builds until the good guy beats the tar out of the villain. Everybody cheers and concludes the good guy won it with honor!
Ouch. So the Republicans, seeing the success Hillary has had in political self destruction and seeing her favorables drop off a cliff after months of cheesy fake outrage and patently disingenuous attacks … they’re going to emulate her strategy?
Good lord. I can only hope we will be so lucky.
She has another choice: Drop out after Pennsylvania or the first primary from this point forward that she actually loses, and let McCain and her surrogates (surreptitiously) continue trying to torpedo Obama’s campaign before the convention. It is unlikely to happen, but at least that would allow her to ride in again on a white horse if Obama did have to drop out for some reason. As it is going now, even if she does succeed in destroying Obama it will turn off so many Democrats in the process that the party is likely to turn to someone else like Gore as the replacement.
YEAH, AND SHE WON MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA TOO! (WHAT A JOKE!)
CATHOLIC VOTERS AGAINST LIARS
AMERICAN VETERANS AGAINST SNIPER FIGHTER LIES.
VOTE ANYONE BUT CLINTON!
I’d vote for her if I had to, but at this point, were Obama to have to drop out for ANY reason, I’d suggest the delegates peldge a vote of no confidence and “draft” Al Gore.
It won’t happen, but it’d make me happier, that’s for damn sure.
I agree with Schoen and I have said so many times. It’s time for Hillary to take the kid gloves off and go after this guy. If Obama is the nominee, John McCain is virtually guaranteed the White House. Clinton has to stop Obamamania for the sake of Democrats. His nomination will set back the Democratic Party for years, as the general election loss will be widely and correctly seen as the result of the Democratic Party completely overthrowing class-based politics for identity politics. One thing that this process has demonstrated is that many people who self-identify as Democrats are out of touch with America. The Party needs to re-focus its politics and – if it is going to give so much weight to popular participation – educate its members.
Comeback Bill, it’s children like you who will ensure a third Bush term. You need to get out of Hillary’s cult of personality and think about the bigger picture, my friend. You REALLY want four more years of this nightmare? You’re THAT spiteful, or should I say, bitter, that you’d prefer McCain over Obama? Seriously?
If Hillary manages to win the nomination ugly – and we all know that’s the only way she will win it – I will STILL VOTE FOR HER, despite my anger. I know that I will be royally pissed for the three weeks after the convention, but after a while, I will remember where my loyalties lie and come around to support Hillary. Heck, I’ll probably even send her a donation with a hearty “Give ’em Hell, Hill.”
And I’ve got the same message for all the Obama supporters out there shoveling the same $hit as Comeback Bill. Keep your eyes on the prize, a Democrat in the White House.
“..her recent determination to use a positive message until the Democratic convention…”
Schoen’s admitting that Clinton was running a negative campaign prior to some change of heart telling her to be positive, then experiencing another change of heart?
Right now, Clinton’s campaign is damned if they go negative, and damned if they don’t. They’ve boxed themselves in pretty well.
Andrew @ 35: Wow, where to start?
I, for one, am tired of class based politics. I am especially tired of the hypocrisy of people like Clinton, who sit on hundreds of millions of dollars, claiming to champion the poor working people. It’s a vote-getting strategy, not a sincere philosophy, and everyone on both the left and the right sees through it.
It is true that Obama may lose in November. However, Hillary would positively loose. You saw today’s polls about her honesty, right? Heck, democrats think she’s a liar. Independents and Republicans even more so. And, if you’re willing and capable of entertaining possibilities that you do not like, would her loss in November mark a repudiation of the class-based politics that you support? Or would that, too, be identity-based politics, which you oppose?
The party does need to rethink its priorities and educate voters. In fact, it’s in the midst of doing so. You’re just one of those who needs to be educated about why the party has outgrown ruling-class politics.
Andrew Austin at 35 gets it. Only a woman and the women who only support the woman candidate can break this unhealthy obsession with identity politics. Clinton has been nice, sweet, accommodating, gentle, all the things men expect women to be and will punish us if we’re not, but the time has come to play hardball and let everyone know just how tough she is and how she can get things done instead of talk, talk, talking about stupid stuff like whose memory is better and who has more lobbyist friends and the ridiculous details that fascinate the children who don’t know anything about policy. Senator Clinton’s newly assertive campaign is going to be painful for Mr. Bruises If You Touch Him and his easily injured followers, but it has to be done to get the right person into the White House.
Come on, folks, **PLEASE** stop feeding the trolls! I’m just as guilty as anyone else here, but we need to clean up our act or they’ll just keep coming and posting stupidity.
They aren’t worth it!
It is obvious Obama’s appeal is fading. Did you guys see that Bob Johnson, founder of BET said “Obama would not be in this position if he was a white politician.” Same thing Ferrero said but she got booted for it. So is it true now or are all you Obamamaniacs still living in Fantasyland`
Hillary Clinton has a delusional sense of altruism. She has proven that in many of her highly exaggerated talks. She appears to be a person who is not going to loose graciously, and If she looses out to Obama, she’ll certainly cry foul and blame her failure on the media.
You mean folks like manny, Shade?
Greg = Comeback Bill = Manny from Miami
One person, multiple personalities
So since when did being “elite” become a bad thing?
Was Hillary Fired for Unethical Misconduct?
.
The links below say that her boss in the Watergate investigation fired her, refused to give her a letter of recommendation and said she was a liar and did highly unethical things.
.
Supposedly, her boss says that she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality, that she was an unethical and dishonest lawyer, that he should have reported her to the bar association for disciplinary action, and that she wrote a fraudulent legal memorandum which if submitted to a judge would have gotten her disbarred, and that he could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.
.
http://www.jzeifman.com/
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut
.
I have not seen these statements elsewhere. Has anyone been able to confirm or debunk this?
Thanks.
I agree with Schoen and I have said so many times. It’s time for Hillary to take the kid gloves off and go after this guy. If Obama is the nominee, John McCain is virtually guaranteed the White House.
And this, of course,is because the candidate that Hillary can’t beat is a sure loser while Hillary is a sure winner.
Nice logic.
I think that Doug Schoen is an idiot. Senator Clinton should generally stay on a positive message. That said, I’ll invite the hideous attacks that will now befall me and say that she can repeat her comments on Senator Obama’s ‘bitter Americans’ speach as long as she likes because the premise of his statement is that Washington failed small town America for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, which of those of you who are mathematically disinclined covers the Clinton Administration. Which means, once again, Obama attacked Clinton first.
I think Slappy Magoo may have a point though (#7).
“Our strategy will look a fair amount like the one that Hillary is running against him now,” the [Republican’t] official said.
Brooks said: “Ouch. So the Republicans, seeing the success Hillary has had in political self destruction and seeing her favorables drop off a cliff after months of cheesy fake outrage and patently disingenuous attacks … they’re going to emulate her strategy? Good lord. I can only hope we will be so lucky.”
Bravo Brooks! Now that’s a telling point. If the Republican’ts have Senator Obama as their opponent they really ought not to use a loser’s playbook. Because if it would work, they won’t have Senator Obama to kick around (unless he’s the VP nominee).
James Dillon said: “If you’re going to keep saying [She won Ohio and Texas], can you at least address the question of how one can reasonably argue that Clinton “won” Texas?”
Simple enough. If she has ANY chance at convincing the Super Delegates to overturn the Byzantine outcome of Nevada and Texas she’s going to argue she won the popular vote (probably with the help of Florida) and she DID win that in Texas.
I’m going to vote for Obama in November if he’s the nominee. But I will suggest that calling Clinton Supporters ‘idiots’ and ‘Not Democrats’ is not really the way to reduce the number of her supporters that will have nothing to do with Barack.
Still in all, he’s YOUR candidate. Piss off any number of people if you please.
Oh no! Do not throws out his mother now
after trying hard to be true black with Uncle Wright for 20 years.
Compared to his father, his mother is powerless, typical white woman.
So here comes his desire, Dream of My Father.
Now he is like a crying baby coming back home for comfort.
Where is his father now?
Where is hi Uncle Wright now?
Schoen knows how high her negatives are among the voting public and *still* recommends that she should go more negative? On which planet does he live??? Because, on mine, nobody likes a shrew…
It’s as if a totally tone-deaf person was trying to tune a violin by ear. Next, he’ll be saying that, if a majority of Dems support Obama, they’re all a bunch of out-of-touch, delusional, uneducated, peons… Who don’t know what’s good for them and who — the horror! — might actually want to participate in the political process, while the wimps in the party *let them*…
To date, 100% of Clinton’s ads in PA are negative against Barack Obama, so it’s apparent she has no intention of doing anything other than trying to destroy Obama:
She promises she has even dirtier tricks to use against McCain, but damn, she’s given the Republicans so much to use against her already, she’s being foolish. Obama is no test for her, since he low-keys her ankle-biting, but we’ve sure learned she isn’t vetted as she claimed. Even if she were thoroughly vetted, she’s hoist on her own petard so many times in the present that they won’t have to look far for material to beat her up with.
I guess she’ll completely abandon her positive campaign, though like others I haven’t seen it yet. I suppose it’ll be her last hurrah, and a very stupid on at that.
So this genius says Hillary needs to go even more negative? She’ll have dig deep down in her barrel of sludge to come up with more material. Maybe she could say Obama is the Anti-Christ. Maybe she could say Obama conspired in the Kennedy assassinations, although this might be a stretch, as Obama was barely kindergarten age back then.
After watching tonight’s debacle of a debate on abc, I just have to say I am completely done with “politics as usual.”
As Rome is burning, abc moderators were asking questions about flag lapel pins and Hillary was trying to connect Obama to some aging hippie terrorist from the 60’s to the WTC attacks. I mean come on guys, how does any of this crap relate to me paying $60+ to gas up. How does this help the recession? I’m SO DONE with elites in this nation thinking the American people are SO STUPID that we’re obsessed with flag pins and not the real issues we are facing on a dialy basis.
What scares me about Clinton’s negative slant is that, if she is the successful candidate, the Republicans will use her own words and the words of her own campaign staffers and supporters to justify waging a negative campaign against her.
And one thing we know for sure is that her dirty laundry has NOT been aired nearly as much as Obama’s has. For example, anyone wonder why no one has questioned Clinton’s choice on using Jesse Jackson as a spritual advisor after all of the incendiary statements he has made? Well if you can choose your pastor, you can certainly choose your spiritual advisory as well.
The Republicans will rip Clinton to shreds for things not only she has done but things her husband has done, like pardoning the Weather Undergound.
If it is a negative campaign that Clinton wants, if she’s chosen the Dem party winner, it is definitely a negative campaign that she will get.
As for me, I actually like Obama more for his stance against going negative. He did not attack her in last night’s discussion (because it certainly was not a debate), while she took every plausible opportunity (and some not so plausible) to attack him.
You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.
BTW, I am not concerned at all if Obama is selected the Dem candidate, about his relationship with Wright. Has anyone ever really listened to Hagee? If we stack up Wright’s incendiary statements against Hagee’s incendiary statements, Hagee wins that contest hands down. And if we stack Obama’s “bitter” blunder up against McCain’s insistence that the foreclosure crisis is the fault of homeowners who didn’t use credit wisely, my vote is for Obama.
A “kitchen-sink” approach is shallow, unintelligent and desperate. A leader needs confrontation ability, but not extreme dysfunctional behavior and acting out unless that is what you want in the leader. Be careful what you vote for. You might just get what you deserve.
PetraK #53… YES! I felt exactly the same way. Even after Obama told them these were stupid questions to focus on, they asked even more.
I hate Clinton’s strategy as much as anyone, but don’t worry about it giving the Repubs ammunition. They are perfectly capable of coming up with this – and more – on their own. Obama knows that and he can handle it.
Hillary claims to have religion but can pull her brother down without thought. Her opponent, even in the wake of the Rev. Wright incident, has shown more of a Christian standard by keeping his cool.