have to agree there... that is what constitutes a 'positive campaign.' Obama said a few months ago that it was up to the press to investigate the truthfulness of claims that Hillary made and for voters to make up their own minds, and it was not the province of his campaign to vet Hillary as a candidate. And he has stood by this, only calling her out when she had made direct attacks upon him or clearly distorted his record or misrepresented him. Now that the kitchen sink has been thrown he can set the narrative more clearly in his own terms, and Clinton is still arguing that he is worse. Very good points!

Good point, ChronoSpark. In fact, more than once I've had this strange urge to "coach" Hillary on how to put her best foot forward. Part of that urge is no doubt because I coach people on presentation and resumes as part of my job; and part of it is that as a woman of her generation, I want her to represent "us" better.

If you think of the campaign season as a job interview, then Hillary is handing us, her prospective employers, a resume that lists the other job applicant's perceived failings rather than her own accomplishments. Envision how bizarre that would be in an actual job interview scenario!

For quite a while I kept waiting for her to start talking about her accomplishments, which I assumed she must have a fairly good list of after all her years in public roles -- though I had known only of her White House years and her efforts for the health care plan, which didn't turn out to be great resume material. But when she did talk about her accomplishments, it was "Opposed NAFTA" oops; "Underwent sniper fire at Tuzla" oops. So now I am simply confused: Is it a question of packaging or does she truly not have much in the way of real accomplishments to list?

It would have been easy for Hillary to do a good-better-best comparison throughout her campaign.
First she could have on occasion graciously acknowledged McCain is good (on a few things like service to his country) but then said immediately that Obama, her fellow Democrat, however, is far better candidate than McCain. And then Hillary could have concluded her comparison by saying with my skills, however, I take Obama's virtues one step further. I am the best candidate of all three so vote for me.

But Hillary didn't do this. When she didn't win Super Tuesday she dropped the graciousness and actually expressed joy that now the "fun part" was about to begin. The "fun" part? She wheeled on her fellow Democrat she had been so "honored" to be with on the same stage and, as she said, began to throw the kitchen sink at him. This is where I wheeled away from her not only because of her new tactics but I was actually insulted as a woman by her choosing the term "kitchen sink." To me it subtly brought up an image of the angry wife throwing things because she lacked the strength to take on her "husband" any other way. Not a pretty picture. I wanted her to instead go toe to toe with him matching her resume to his, contrasting her political wit and savvy with his. I wanted her to show she was an equal to any man running.
Ironically she could have done that very well. I wanted her to show the unique strength and compassion only a woman could bring to the office of president but instead she inadvertently emphasized that as a woman her weapons were to resort to demeaning her opponent ("MacCain and I have years of experience, Barack only has a speech in '94") or lecturing like a school marm ("shame on you Barack Obama!").

For a woman of immense talent she has disappointed me greatly.

Hillary expected that Democrats would give her a Coronation Ceremony, and she feels that she is entitled to it. Now, that it is becoming clear that she is not going to have a Tiara placed on her head, she is doing a Fatal Attraction number on the Party that has denied her the crown.

She wants to take our Democratic Party down with her.

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE OUR VILLAGE!!!!

wow! That post popped right in there. Thanks, Josh, for working out the bugs.

Barack Obama IS worse than Hillary. And as today's Rasmussen poll shows, he is not succeeding at changing the subject away from his condescending and dismissive attitude. He wants to redefine the most recent conflict as being about his "poor choice of words". No, it's about his attitude. Neither does his disrespectful and sexist "Annie Oakley" slam against Hillary help him.

Your attitudes reflect those of an avid Obama supporter. The problem for Obama is that increasingly his own attitudes are becoming known, and it is hurting him. His remarks in San Francisco give yet another troubling glimpse into the way he thinks. Many fell for the image he created. The reality is far less appealing.

I posted an overlong blog entry about the forum, earlier this morning. I thought Hillary did great--but Obama certainly did better (proving that it IS possible to say, this one's good but that one's better!) He gave specifics and spoke honestly. He didn't pander to the audience, even announcing at one point, "And hey, I believe in evolution," before anyone even asked. He went further to point out the common ground between believers of all faiths (and nonbelievers) than I've seen anyone go for a long time. And FWIW, some of my fears about the religious crowd were assuaged by the fact that they included questions from an imam, and a rabbi, and some non-religious social workers.

Definitely worth checking out.

(Y'all are right--these answers are popping up right away!) I wanted to add that Obama got a lot more applause than Hillary, even when he was discussing why he is pro-choice. At Messiah University, he got applause for his explanation of being pro-choice. Seriously.

It's harder and harder for me to figure out why, if she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her. The Supreme Court is absolutely the only reason left. I'm not sure that's enough to prevent me from telling the Democratic party, if they allow her to take it, that I can't tolerate it. Josh is laughing... I am nauseated.

I just want to thank everyone for their kinds words of support and the discussion that has sprouted as a result of my post. It really means a lot.

"Some one you would like to have a beer with"

Well you got him folks, for the past seven years. How has that worked out for you.

Hillary, Shot and a Beer, Clinton is running for Bush's third term.

Hillary thinks that the American Voters are so stupid that they will keep falling for the same Bullshit over and over.

Will you? Hillary believes that you will.

Are you really craving for George W. Bush in a Kevlar, sniper defying, Pantsuit!!!!

Thanks, a really good post. Hillary attacked Obama over Wright despite the fact that Wright stood up for Bill during the Monica crisis. I don't recall any comment on his part about her Bosnia creation. Hillary's value system is lacking.

I'm mad as hell at what Hillary is doing right now.

Not only is she working overtime hardening voters against Sen. Obama, her behavior is turning housands of people off the Democratic party, people that had given up on politics, but that because of Sen. Obama came under the tent and dared to believe that the Democratic party could be once again the party of ideals, the party of the people, the party that doesn't just play politics to win at all costs.

That the DNC leaders are letting this go one ONE MORE SECOND is reprehensible.

I'm mad as hell that Hillary's whole campaign strategy involves destroying everything that Sen. Obama has worked for more than a year to do.

And you just have to see this:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1jm.htm

I find it sad that the people who have criticized my post have done so by labeling me an Obama supporter (as if it's a negative to be so. When did I criticize Hillary's supporters, or really, anything except for her campaign itself?), and then going off criticizing Obama, rather than making real points of contention as to why Hillary is better than Obama. Instead, the points do exactly what I loathe so much about Hillary's campaign: they argue why Obama is WORSE. I fail to see the logic in this.

I also went from being a reluctant but willing supporter of HRC to actually preferring to see her beaten by McCain than to see her as POTUS. At least I know what to expect from him. Not that I would vote for him, but I won't vote for HRC either. If she ends up the nominee, I'll vote for Dems for Congress and locally but I'll sit out the POTUS vote for the first time in 40 years.

I'm glad to be on a forum with people who agree with me. My last few posts on MJ's "we'll all vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination" were a real battle.

Still, for me, it just shows how much of an internal struggle this has become, not only for me, but I believe many voters.

I've been outspoken in my contempt for people who say they will vote for McCain, and I never considered not voting until this last thing. This really has been just one stupid Rove style smear too many.

In other words, I'm having the same struggle now. I am sure I'll get over it if she's nominated. I'm sorta sure...

I'll vote I guess, but if she's nominated, I'm seriously thinking of leaving the Democrats after the election.

I got mighty frustrated watching a Hillary clip from either today or yesterday. As she spoke, you could visibly see her getting ready to bring up the "elitist" charge, and she did it even though members of the crowd started groaning. She must be quite cynical to go straight to the Bush/Rove tactics of snatching a word from your opponent's discourse, twisting that word out of context and printing bumper stickers. Hillary could have joined in the larger discussion about why lower-income blue collar workers will vote emotional issues rather than economic issues, joined a productive dialogue, but rather she chose to distort the conversation for personal gain. I'm 90 percent the way to saying to hell with her.

The writer here really speaks to me. When I listen to Obama, when I read his books, I see a man that wants to lift up this country and the people. He wants us to better and to reap the benefits that being better provides. On the other hand, Hillary is constantly in the battle of "one-ups-manship." And to do this she takes the low road even when it is not necessary. Hillary always fails to inspire. One man comes across as the real deal and the women comes across as contrived. This is from a women of her age that is supposed to be her base. None of my friends of similar age, gender and white race can accept this kind of campaign.

The writer here really speaks to me. When I listen to Obama, when I read his books, I see a man that wants to lift up this country and the people. He wants us to better and to reap the benefits that being better provides. On the other hand, Hillary is constantly in the battle of "one-ups-manship." And to do this she takes the low road even when it is not necessary. Hillary always fails to inspire. One man comes across as the real deal and the women comes across as contrived. This is from a women of her age that is supposed to be her base. None of my friends of similar age, gender and white race can accept this kind of campaign.

The "condescending and dismissive" accusation came from Clinton, and the brainless media went along with it.

Obama is the opposite of condescending and dismissive; he tries to communicate with us and encourages us to communicate with each other. What an odd concept -- there must be something wrong with that guy. It's some kind of sinister plot for sure.

S1m0n, that's a brilliant insight. Why didn't I think of that? So much of the discussion about the two campaigns has been pitched at the level of the tactical, psychological and personal. As you point out, we may well be seeing a long-term strategy playing out. You wrote,

"I think it's more systematic & more strategic than that. Hillary Clinton's strategists have known all along that her unprecedented negative ratings would strongly limit the amount of growth in support that she could hope to achieve. While much of her core support was very strong, 20 years of polarizing the electorate as a strategy had had its effect, and the ceiling was low.

"So, her strategy all along has been to deliberately go negative to shrink the electorate down to the democratic party core; amongst whom, she has to hope, her hard rump of support might number a majority."

The "inevitability" strategy is of a piece with this. It asked nothing of Democratic primary voters and depended on the largesse of large donors. The Conventional Wisdom is that after the "inevitability" strategy collapsed, the Clinton campaign did not have a Plan B. But perhaps there was a Plan B.

My question to you is, how does the Clintons' alienation of African-American voters fit with your analysis? Support for Hillary among this part of the "Democratic party core" was once significantly stronger than support for Obama. Why needlessly squander that support? Did the Clintons simply make a mistake, or was there larger strategic thinking here as well?

Another question for you is how the "shrink the electorate" play out in the general election, given that McCain will probably appeal to many independents and even some Democrats? Is the Clinton campaign assumikng that the Republicans are so discredited that she will still be able to pull off a victory even with a shrunken electorate?

This post really says a lot that I feel. I started out this campaign over a year ago as a totally committed Obama supporter, working my butt off trying to be sure he would win. But, his positions on too many issues began to eat away at my support for him. Then I believed he flunked an important test of integrity, so I dropped out of the campaign and started trying to decide between Clinton and Edwards.

Edwards always seemed to say the things I believed in, but when I watched him say those things I couldn't accept that he was what he was portraying himself to be. So, I began to work at building enthusiasm for Clinton.

As the campaign wore on Senator Clinton kept disappointing me. First, her too obvious attempts to be seen as someone who would shoot first and negotiate later bothered me. Then, the lies seemed to get bigger. Finally, it became obvious that Obama was going to win the nomination, but Senator Clinton switched to trying to cheat her way to the nomination. Finally, she stooped so low as to compare Obama unfavorably to McCain. That left me with only Obama to support.

Obama, during all of this kept working to build up his positive image with voters. Senator Clinton never seemed to quite get that voters want to vote for the best person, not the least bad person. Her lies and exaggerations, her pandering to the basest of her potential supporters, and her utter lack of support for the Democratic Party as a whole, finally made me a bitter opponent of hers, one who will have a very hard time supporting her if she manages to cheat her way to the nomination.

on't get so worried about that Bomb Iran song. Remember when Reagan joked he was going to Nuke the Soviet Union and he turned out to be a pretty decent President if I recall.

Holy shit.

Ronald Reagan was the worst president of the 20th century. He is directly responsible for starting the shit George is finishing - demolishing our infrastructure; gutting anti-trust; running illegal bullshit operations out of the White House with the same cast of characters - Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

Ronald Reagan - I'm still working out just how I'm going to get past the guards and spit on his grave.

My point is, how many who have already voted in the primaries but are no longer part of her constituency? Quite a few judging from people I know.

It doesn't help when you start campaigning by dissing Democrats and Democratic ideas.

She's pissed off god knows how many Democrats, seriously.

Dear Otto;
You missed the point, or did you not see Hillary’s ridiculous staement over the weekend wherein she tried to make herself out to be a gun toting hunter from the backwoods!

She is becoming pathological. She makes up a different story every time a new issue pops up.

She reminds me of a group of friends in high school. It became apparent that one among us was a pathological liar. Being cruel as teens tend to be we all started playing with her. We began taking turns making up stories (supposedly true) just to see what outragious stories she would make up. At the time we all got a big kick from it, but of course now looking back, it is clear to me that this girl really had a serious pathology.

Hillary reminds me of that high school girl now. She makes up a new ridiculous story for every new point of criticism she slings at Obama.

I cracked up when Obama called her Annie Oakley! There was nothing sexist about it Otto. It was an appropriate joke for the characature that Hillary HERSELF portrayed with those lines about guns and hunting.
Obama was funny, without being mean, and his comments were incisive.

I have an idea Otto-if you think this my expression is misplaced:
Find a picture of Hillary in a duck blind that Obama requested after he called her Annie Oakley, and I will sincerely and humbly apologize to you.

But it was still hysterically funny when he called her Annie Oakley. When I was a kid there was a TV show called Annie Oakley and in the opening credits she rode her horse across the scene and shot the heart, or spade or whichever card they used-right out of the card someone was holding. Annie was a real live lady gunslinger and that is the image Obama created when he used that line.

By the way Otto-if you are a Cinton supporter and thus a progressive-did you not get the point Obama made? The Republicans have used the disaffected feelings of the “red state” citizenry and fired them up with specious issues that have little or nothing to do with their own daily lives for years now. And the result is that working class people continue voting for the very leaders who have destroyed their unions (directly as well as by placing right wing judges throughout the federal judicial system), and wreeked havoc on their economic well being.

Their tactics have been dispicable but effective-get folks fired up about gay marriage, make them afraid someone is trying to take their religion from them-and shazam! You have millions of voters who support the likes of Bush- who has presided over the first economic expansion in modern history where the standard of living has gone down for the working class! That was Obama’s point, and to date I have heard no one from the progressive side dispute the actual point that Obama made.

If you have not considered this, I have a good reference for you: What’s the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank. I can assure you Hillary is quite well read and understands this issue thoroughly which is why Obama repeatedly expressed “shame on you Hillary because you know better.”

Let's not forget that this whole thing was an answer to a question about voting patterns not changing very fast.

He was highlighting - arguably inartfully - the concept that, after giving up on the government as an agent of change, people tend to vote against their economic interest, and vote instead on "hot button issues". The Republicans exploit this by "wedging" the electorate to their side - they don't have to promise anything other than "you'll keep your guns and we won't shut down your church". Which, of course, the Dems wouldn't do either, but they are portrayed to these voters through a tainted media as if they were.

The "What's wrong with Kansas" theory is pretty much accepted within the Dem leadership, and it's been clear to everybody that the Dem tent had gotten a bit too small and too exclusive to be useful.

Obama's approach - even before he entered politics - has always been inclusive. He was working with churches despite the fact that he was skeptical of organized religion. He was a Constitutional Law teacher, so he know what the Second Amendment means, and he would restore the Constitution to its rightful place.

Let's not let this issue keep getting twisted. The facts are where they are, his opinions are clear and well documented, and his past actions speak 1000 times more clearly than any clumsy choice of words.

I thought this was supposed to be about record, not "words", remember?

"The integrity involved in such a thing speaks worlds to me about why Obama is the right choice. I am by no means saying my explanation is perfect, but it is something I have noticed, and I can only hope I'm not the only one who has."

You are not the only one!

Thanks.