WASHINGTON - As Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks to distinguish herself from Barack Obama with a more aggressive, confrontational tone, the Obama camp is adding to its quick response machine.
The campaign opened a Web site Monday, hillaryattacks.barackobama.com, to keep track of Clinton's criticisms, hoping to build a case that she is running a negative campaign. The step is a sign of the new friction in the Democratic presidential race with just one month before the first votes are cast in Iowa.
"We're asking all of you to be vigilant and notify us immediately of any attacks from Senator Clinton or her supporters as soon as you see them so that we can respond with the truth swiftly and forcefully," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a Web posting for supporters.
Clinton, who had lately focused her criticism of Obama on his health care plan, said Sunday it was time to begin defining the differences among the candidates.
"I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks," she said in Iowa. "Well, now the fun part starts. We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrasts."
Clinton has been a main target of Democrats, particularly Obama and Edwards, who have tried to equate her with an old Washington establishment that would not foster political change. Her campaign has had its own Web site, facts.hillaryhub.com, to rebut claims made by her opponents.
Obama and his aides say Clinton's new combative style is driven by the closeness of the race in Iowa where Clinton, Obama and Edwards appear locked in a statistical dead heat.
Seriouslly, who is she trying to kid? Its like shes taking pages from the Republicans Playbook here. Mean while, Obama keeps coming off looking more and more like someone i WANT as President.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan Read "Tales From The Crossroads"! Read "One Wrong Turn"!
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is getting advice from an unlikely source: former top Bush aide Karl Rove.
The man behind Bush's two presidential victories took to the pages of the Financial Times Sunday to offer the candidate some unsolicited suggestions on how to beat rival Hillary Clinton.
In an open memo to Obama, Rove said the Illinois senator currently appears "weak and ineffectual," and should start sharpening his attacks on the New York Democrat.
"Stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson," Rove writes in reference to another Illinois Democrat who twice ran for president and lost. "Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way."
Rove also suggests Obama exploit the "real doubts" many Democrats feel about Clinton, take clear stances on the issues, and better articulate the type of change he is hoping to represent.
Finally, Rove says Obama needs to decry what he calls Clinton's complaints that she is "being picked on."
"Find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on," Rove writes. "The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation."
"Blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim," he continues. "Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more."
Rove's memo comes the same day a new poll out of crucial early-voting state Iowa shows Obama seems to have taken a lead over Clinton, 28 percent to 25 percent. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is a close third at 23 percent. With the poll's 4.4 percent margin of error, the race in the Hawkeye State is a statistical dead heat.
Responding to the memo, a Clinton campaign spokesperson said, "Why is Karl Rove giving Sen. Obama advice on how to win? Could it be that he thinks it will be easier for Republicans to run against the unknown gentleman from Illinois?"
Politico's Jim VandeHei said it's more likely Rove is seeking publicity and wants to have a voice as the election unfolds.
"If you're a gambler you want to be at the table, and he very much wants to be part of this debate," VandeHei said.
From what I've heard (and any Iowans can jump in and contradict me) from one of the top leaders of the Utah Democratic Party (who talked about the campaigning he did for Dick Gephardt in the 2004 election primary in Iowa), it's a dangerous business attacking in Iowa, especially if it leads to a cycle of ever-increasing attacks; he mentioned that what Gephardt did in getting into a spat with Dean was the political equivalent of a murder-suicide pact. I hope something like that doesn't happen in Iowa.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.” -Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." -Margaret Atwood
Guardsman Bass wrote:From what I've heard (and any Iowans can jump in and contradict me) from one of the top leaders of the Utah Democratic Party (who talked about the campaigning he did for Dick Gephardt in the 2004 election primary in Iowa), it's a dangerous business attacking in Iowa, especially if it leads to a cycle of ever-increasing attacks; he mentioned that what Gephardt did in getting into a spat with Dean was the political equivalent of a murder-suicide pact. I hope something like that doesn't happen in Iowa.
Obama shouldn't feel compelled to spend any great amount of time or money hitting back at Hillary. So far, his media response to the claim of Hillary's vast foreign policy experience was "Well, I don't think Madeleine Albright feels that Hillary was the face of American foreign policy".
The man has dry sarcasm down. He can dismiss wild and frankly stupid attacks with a pithy one-liner and move on with politics-as-usual. This week's poll numbers were a half-brick to the face of Hillary's campaign. Not only is Obama leading in Iowa, but he's leading amongst women and blacks, erasing Hillary's previous leads, and he's cutting deeply into her leads in other primary states.
The "quality" of these "attacks" screams of an unplanned-for circumstance, which itself implies astounding arrogance.
Many thanks! These darned computers always screw me up. I calculated my first death-toll using a hand-cranked adding machine (we actually calculated the average mortality in each city block individually). Ah, those were the days.
-Stuart
"Mix'em up. I'm tired of States' Rights."
-Gen. George Thomas, Union Army of the Cumberland
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds: "I'm sure tomorrow they'll attack him for being a flip-flopper because he told his second grade teacher he wanted to be an astronaut."
Hillary R. Clinton accusing anyone else of going into the Senate with aspirations on the White House == Ultra-Fail.
In kindergarten, Sen. Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President':
"Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]
WTF? lol they're picking up an paper he wrote in Kindergarten? How does the teacher remember btw, does she have a copy? This is just making her look bad.
I think every politician aspired to be president at some point. Aspiring to do so and actually doing so are to completely different things.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@ To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
It seems like not too long ago when the media pundits were all over Obama for not being "aggressive enough" in his campaign. He does that and ends up gaining an edge, but when Hillary Clinton starts to do the same sort of thing she gets blasted for it? I'm not for Hillary Clinton at all, but I don't think it's fair to blast her for mudslinging specifically when every other candidate is doing the same thing.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." -George Carlin (1937-2008)
"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting." -Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
Darth Fanboy wrote:It seems like not too long ago when the media pundits were all over Obama for not being "aggressive enough" in his campaign. He does that and ends up gaining an edge, but when Hillary Clinton starts to do the same sort of thing she gets blasted for it? I'm not for Hillary Clinton at all, but I don't think it's fair to blast her for mudslinging specifically when every other candidate is doing the same thing.
You bring down the person who's ahead. If you let them get too far ahead, the race becomes boring, because you know who will win.
Phantasee wrote:
You bring down the person who's ahead. If you let them get too far ahead, the race becomes boring, because you know who will win.
Oh I know, trust me. I just really loathe the hypocrisy of it all.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." -George Carlin (1937-2008)
"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting." -Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
Darth Fanboy wrote:It seems like not too long ago when the media pundits were all over Obama for not being "aggressive enough" in his campaign. He does that and ends up gaining an edge, but when Hillary Clinton starts to do the same sort of thing she gets blasted for it? I'm not for Hillary Clinton at all, but I don't think it's fair to blast her for mudslinging specifically when every other candidate is doing the same thing.
Could we have some mudslinging not based on 'lulz, kindergarten paper!'? Then I might not mock.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Darth Fanboy wrote:It seems like not too long ago when the media pundits were all over Obama for not being "aggressive enough" in his campaign. He does that and ends up gaining an edge, but when Hillary Clinton starts to do the same sort of thing she gets blasted for it? I'm not for Hillary Clinton at all, but I don't think it's fair to blast her for mudslinging specifically when every other candidate is doing the same thing.
Since when does "aggressive" translate into "mudslinging"?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:
Since when does "aggressive" translate into "mudslinging"?
Because in American Politics, "aggressive" campaigning always involves attack ads, and public questioning of the other candidate's character. When was the last time you can remember that a major American politician ran a campign without deeply questioning the character of their opponent (a.k.a mudslinging)?
SirNitram wrote:Could we have some mudslinging not based on 'lulz, kindergarten paper!'? Then I might not mock.
If that's all she does then you're right and there's nothing I could say to counter that, however, I don't think even Hillary Clinton is dumb enough to try and bill that as the key to her victory over Obama.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." -George Carlin (1937-2008)
"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting." -Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
General Zod wrote:
Since when does "aggressive" translate into "mudslinging"?
Because in American Politics, "aggressive" campaigning always involves attack ads, and public questioning of the other candidate's character. When was the last time you can remember that a major American politician ran a campign without deeply questioning the character of their opponent (a.k.a mudslinging)?
SirNitram wrote:Could we have some mudslinging not based on 'lulz, kindergarten paper!'? Then I might not mock.
If that's all she does then you're right and there's nothing I could say to counter that, however, I don't think even Hillary Clinton is dumb enough to try and bill that as the key to her victory over Obama.
I think the Obama campaign (and since I'm not in Iowa or NH I'm not getting ads every 5 minutes) has largely focused their attack on specific policy matters and trying to remind everybody that first lady is not a policy position so the whole "experience" thing for Clinton is a really big handwaving performance. Mudslinging is when it starts to be about she is a liar and a hypocrit which hasn't yet been the theme.
Clinton is getting heat because she hasn't been attacking Obama's policy so much as his motivation and intentions. She has been working on policy hits which is why I'd hesitate to call it mudslinging but her campaign is reacting in a clearly disorganized way trying to overcome a shift in the polls that they were blissfully ignoring until they were no longer in front.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
So, Obama was a math nerd when he was a kid, and Bush was around torturing snails and dogs.
People never disappoint.
JFK's speech writer endorsed Obama on an interview I watched. He says Obama is going to win it, and is the first time he's gotten excited about a President in a long time.
Hillary can only go downhill, and as long as Obama doesn't pull a Dean Scream he is it.
If it is Obama, and America doesn't pick him because because he's black or sounds like Osama, my last shred of respect for America will be lost. I still have a lot of hope for America: America has many good intentions and good people, but if it turns out they pick The Ghoul or any of the Republicans, even after all the fuckups... America will be permanently down the shitter whether I want it or not, whether I like it or not.
The entire idea of attack ads and mudslinging and such in a primary still just boggles me. Ahem: these people still have to win the real election! What sort of fucking imbecile rains shit all over his opponent's parade, when he'd still rather have his current opponent win the real election than the opposition candidate? How does any theoretically-intelligent political party leadership not come down on that like a hammer made entirely of tiny anvils?
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
White Haven wrote:What sort of fucking imbecile rains shit all over his opponent's parade, when he'd still rather have his current opponent win the real election than the opposition candidate?
Solve the puzzle to recieve your answer.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V _ X Y Z
Seriously, after all the shit dumped on McCain in 2000, I was shocked when McPander actually supported Bush as strongly as he did.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." -George Carlin (1937-2008)
"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting." -Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
The point I've got in mind is more that with all the shit Bush shoveled off on him during the primaries, if he'd still won the Democrats would have had a field day with all the prep work their opposition's campaign already did for them in crucifying their opponent.
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
General Zod wrote:
Since when does "aggressive" translate into "mudslinging"?
Because in American Politics, "aggressive" campaigning always involves attack ads, and public questioning of the other candidate's character. When was the last time you can remember that a major American politician ran a campign without deeply questioning the character of their opponent (a.k.a mudslinging)?
As far as I can tell, Obama's increased aggressiveness has translated into speaking more loudly. I've been to two Obama rallies (I live in Iowa, so they were both within walking distance), and the difference was clear. Neither speech was based on attacking the other candidates, but he really stepped up the urgency of his second speech, mentioning a bunch of issues from his campaign platform in a voice loud enough to sometimes count as shouting.
White Haven wrote:What sort of fucking imbecile rains shit all over his opponent's parade, when he'd still rather have his current opponent win the real election than the opposition candidate?
Solve the puzzle to recieve your answer.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V _ X Y Z
Seriously, after all the shit dumped on McCain in 2000, I was shocked when McPander actually supported Bush as strongly as he did.
You forgot the letter 'G', because it was Al Gore's 1988 primary campaign that dug up and started the whole Willie Horton debacle.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
White Haven wrote:The entire idea of attack ads and mudslinging and such in a primary still just boggles me. Ahem: these people still have to win the real election! What sort of fucking imbecile rains shit all over his opponent's parade, when he'd still rather have his current opponent win the real election than the opposition candidate? How does any theoretically-intelligent political party leadership not come down on that like a hammer made entirely of tiny anvils?
It's because the primaries themselves have become an entirely second race, going back to when the party leaders lost a lot of control over whom they could set up as candidate in the 1968-1976 period (1968 was the big year). This is especially the case for the Democrats, but the Republicans have followed suit as well.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.” -Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." -Margaret Atwood
