This bit from the Chicago Tribune on the kitchen sink strategy:
Before the critical primaries in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, her campaign had vowed to throw the “kitchen sink” at Obama to derail the momentum that had led to wins in 11 straight contests.
She honored that vow. It paid off in Ohio, where she won a clear victory but probably not a huge number of additional delegates. It also paid off in Texas, where she won narrowly in the popular vote.
Her strategy was built on a foundation of contradiction.
Clinton opposed the trade agreement that was considered a signature achievement of her husband’s presidency.
She shed her serious side and mugged on “Saturday Night Live” and “The Daily Show” to change her image.
After accusing Obama of plagiarizing speeches, she used an ad strikingly similar to one Walter Mondale ran in 1984 about a dreaded late-night phone call.
Her campaign invoked Obama’s association with developer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a man also in possession of his own grip-and-grin photo with then-First Lady Hillary and President Bill Clinton.
And, in an interview on “60 Minutes,” she even seemed to hedge on the question of whether she believed Obama might be a Muslim.
In response, I’d like to throw the sink, the fridge, the dishwasher and the toilet at her. And this has nothing to do with her being a woman – so please save the double standard and sexist crap. Hillary plays hardball. She plays it well. Obama has to step up that muddy plate now. Go Bama!
and apparently this type of strategy is still continuing with some of his supporters. She did not hedge on the question of whether Obama is a muslim or not. She answered it the only way she could answer a question about someone else’s religion. (I wonder how offensive the Obama campaign’s take on this whole muslim issue is to practicing muslims here in the United States?) Also, I seem to remember a lot of Obama campaign people repeating the same old Republican attack talking points that were leveled at the Clintons years ago and found to be groundless. If that isn’t getting into the mud, I don’t know what is. The Obama campaign has been there all along, but has just been denying it.
<
p>BTW, pointing out differences between the candidates and pointing out problems with the candidate is not getting into the mud. It is called campaigning and better we Democrats find out about weakness inour candidates now rather than later. If Obama cannot handle it and if he gets the nomination, then he is going to have real problems with the Republicans, who will not be as considerate as the Clinton campaign has been. (I think to her detriment.) The Republicans will truly throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at him and whining about it will not be a good defense.
Enough already….
It’s not altogether clear WHAT worked to turn things around for Clinton yet…after all, she has generally done better amongst late-deciders in other states as well. It may not have had to do much with the ad campaigns over the last few days.
<
p>But my concern with your whole argument is this: when we get to the general election, McCain and the 527s will throw the kitchen sink and more at our nominee. The campaign on both sides so far is a slight slap on the wrist compared to the punch in the face that is coming before November. So both candidates have to be prepared to face it, and have little ground to stand on complaining that the other side isn’t playing fair.
<
p>I’d agree that it’s generally not a great thing for both Democrats to be attacking each other, but one benefit that does come out of it is that we’ll see who is best able to withstand a tough general election campaign.
<
p>I find much of the litany you cited from the Trib pretty unconvincing, at least insofar as it’s supposed to show “contradiction.” So she disagreed with her husband on NAFTA. Surely that’s not the first time a wife has disagreed with her husband on something. So she went on SNL and the Daily Show — again, it’s not exactly uncommon for pols to try to lighten up by going on comedy shows. So her campaign riffed on a Mondale ad — that’s not the same as using identical words from another pol’s speech. So she posed for a photo with Rezko — again, that’s not comparable to the land deal that Obama himself concedes was a “bone-headed” move. And I agree with TOS below that the 60 Minutes thing didn’t seem like much of a “hedge.” What’s she supposed to say, other than that she believes him?
<
p>Clinton didn’t win yesterday because she “played dirty.” She won, Obama lost, and the Obamaniacs need to suck it up and move on. Here is an excellent example of how not to do that.
Look, in many ways this campaign has been tame. The negative stuff has not been as bad as it could have been so far. Clinton has been in attack mode but she had to be – I respect that. I’m grasping to make a case against her and will continue to do so with whatever I can bring.
<
p>But I also just really want Obama to be our next President. I want to vote for someone I’m really enthusiastic about for the first time in awhile – not against someone else or for someone I’m only kind of supportive of. This time, I care about a candidate and not just my party. And he can’t go nuts on the opposition but his supporters can. Forgive the enthusiasm.
It’s your willingness to try and BS your way through, as though the rest of us are blind and hard of hearing. The only thing I ask of you (or anyone else) is that you be thoughtful and reasonable in your remarks. The whole “Good Barack/Bad Hillary” thing is just sophomoric. If you think for one minute that Barack’s going to get tickled and teased with feather dusters in the general election – you’re quite wrong. In the words of my very good friend, “the Clinton Warship is going to look like the Love Boat compared to the McCain Juggernaut that will be bearing down on them.”
<
p>Barack’s had a very smooth ride up until now, and perhaps he’ll finally get a taste of what real press coverage is like. It’s a pity that it took the mockery on SNL to wake-up the press.
C’mon – If you mean to tell me that Clinton folks here and elsewhere don’t seek every opportunity to trump what little shards of b.s. they can use to diss Obama then you are friggin blind and deaf.
<
p>This whole double standard thing is so GD annoying. Clintons playing the woe if me card and its working to keep them alive. Bunch of whiners. Pity the persecuted Clintons.
<
p>The press was really tough on the Clintons when they spiked a GQ story they didn’t like.
<
p>The press has really asked tough questions about why the Clintons won’t release their tax returns.
<
p>The press has really looked into the fat cats Clinton does business with now – and gave to his foundation and helped finance the Clinton loan.
<
p>Nothing from the 1990s comes back into this race. I haven’t seen the press start hitting all those old scandals for new dish.
<
p>The Clintons play the press for chumps and then complain like they get it rough. All the Clinton attacks, from both of em get non-stop air time. No one can compete with their ability to dictate the story of the day and they are relentless spinners. Every day I read about another Clinton conference call with surrogates hammering Obama on something or another.
<
p>Look, the Clintons were down and of course they always seem to blame others for their own failings – using the press to play out all their attacks and then claiming the press is biased. Masterful and sleazy.
I find it striking that Senator Clinton’s ability to stop Obama’s winning streak is trumpeted as a huge victory for her.
<
p>In the context of the race after NH — not that long ago — the fact that she managed to win OH and TX would not have been taken as a startling and remarkable victory but as an expected result. Wasn’t Obama way down in the polls in Texas for a long time?
<
p>I certainly acknowledge the importance of the results last night as a practical matter — delegates, momentum, no “knock out” by Obama … I get it — and I am not trying to spin this in an obnoxious pro-Obama fashion (though it no doubt will seem like that to some). All I am saying is that it is helpful to step back and look at the totality of this race so far. To me, Clinton has faltered badly compared to where she was six months ago. Thus, the results last night are essentially only a successful rearguard action. In the context of the election as a whole, and given the general direction of the campaign so far, perhaps that is a loss given where she was, where she is, and where she needs to be. I certainly grant, however, that last night was not a win for Obama. Does this make any sense at all?
Of course it makes no sense at all, but it was predictable. In fact, I predicted it:
<
p>
<
p>Business Week
The reality is that this is an exceedingly close race. Since results have begun being tabulated in January, even when one has the advantage, it is razor-thin, at best.
<
p>Who cares what happened six months ago? They have only been keeping score since Iowa, and it has been a pretty close game since Day 1.
<
p>The thing that has been off-putting, from both sides, but mostly from Camp Obama because he has had the thin advantage for more news days, is that he/they act as if he/they received 99.9997% of the vote, and the other voter misread the ballot. Who the hell is this racist witch who will stop and nothing, including showing children sleeping in cute pajamas, to win? If she thinks she can win, well, she is just sullying herself.
<
p>The natural reaction to this is simple: F— you! Any candidate supported by as great an a–hole as you must be pretty lousy indeed, and shall strongly consider voting for someone else when give the opportunity to do so!
<
p>The tendency to act as if one has received the overwhelming majority of votes, when in reality one has 50.0000% + 1 vote, was one of the most obnoxious characteristics of the incumbent administration. When I see it in a present candidates or the supporters of that candidate, it provokes an intensely negative reaction.
<
p>If the requitement to actually win the nomination, rather than having everyone else surrender so as not to sully themselves means that it is harder for a Democrat that a Republican to secure the nomination, then maybe the Democrats should alter their cockamamie rules to secure more winner-take-all primaries, so that they mirror the actual election.
Its not Obama folks saying “Let’s get real” – its Clinton folks doing that. Its Clinton people accusing us Obamans of being naive or caught in the headlights.
<
p>When has anyone in the Obama camp or here on BMG argued we have won all the votes. If this wasn’t such a tough race and we weren’t up against the biggest name in Democratic politics, I’d be a lot less animated.
<
p>This notion that Obama folks think Clinton people misread the ballot is a complete reversal of reality. Her folks have been the ones accusing Obama supporters of being trust-fund babies and latte-drinkers – and being young and stupid.
<
p>The Clintons and it seems like her supporters are comforted by this persecution myth. But let’s think about it.
<
p>In Ohio 2 in 10 voters said race was a factor in their vote and of those 75% went for Clinton. Seems like a fair amount of folks in good ole Ohio wouldn’t vote for a black guy and these are Democrats we are talking about. Depressing stuff. Hillary and her supporters can claim all they want that they are the ones suffering, when in reality who is more likely to be persecuted in America – a black guy named Barack Husseing Obama or the wife of a former President? Get real.
Actually, Obama is probably more akin to A-Rod (big numbers but can he deliver in the clutch?) and the Yankees up 3-0 and trying to close out the Sox in 2004.
<
p>I know, Hillary professes to be a Yankees fan now, as does Mike Bloomberg of Medford, kind of comes with the territory, but she’s been a long suffering Cubs fan for far longer! And this is the 100th anniversary of their last World Series win …
<
p>