Hillary all-out negative.

Katczinsky · 02-15-2008, 05:23 PM

After straight losses in the February elections, Hillary Clinton is feeling the heat. And now she's turned the burner on her opponent, switching back to negative mode. Among other things she's released just all-out negative ads on Obama (NYTimes).

Perhaps Mike Huckabee's lemon analogy is becoming more relevant as the finish line approaches and people are taking cheap shots. What do you get when you squeeze a lemon? What ever's inside.

It's clear that Clinton is being squeezed, and what's coming out smells like typical reactionism and status quo to me.

To bad the race can't be Obama vs. Huckabee only if to have a relatively positive election year.

Looks like more Daisy Girls, time-bomb clicking noises to images of terrorists, and just overall "my opponent kills kittens and eats babies for breakfast" ads come the general election.

nuttyjoe · 02-15-2008, 07:31 PM

It's an unconcious admission that her ship is fast sinking; Katz.

Katczinsky · 02-15-2008, 08:07 PM

Her ship of inevitability, perhaps. But she definitely still has the upper hand so long as she continues to poll well in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

nuttyjoe · 02-15-2008, 08:42 PM

There is a real reason why she has lost more and more of the Women's support, the Latino support, and the elderly support as evidenced in the last few primary sweeps by Obama.
Her money situation does not look promising either. Her campaign is in disarray when a campaign manager quits or is replaced at such a critical time as this. She has switched from "This is why you should vote for me" messages in her ads to "This is why you shouldn't vote for him" messages.
The polls do show her slightly ahead in the states with upcoming primaries. I believe that if she is swept again; it's all over for her.
I agree with FX; it's Obama's race to win or lose at this point. But he cannot lose. The support being shown Obama guarantees that he must be part of whatever ticket the Dems put forth in November. If he isn't; the GOP will own the White House for the next 16 years.

fmdog44 · 02-18-2008, 12:30 PM

If anyone can pull this out she can and that thought is depressing. This morning on MSNBC (02-18-0

they showed clips of Bill Clinton jumping in the face of an Obama supporter. He got really ugly with the guy and came close to touching his face. Bill is doing more to trash his wife than she is. I truely believe he wants her in more than she does.

waitingtables · 02-18-2008, 12:59 PM

Don't get me wrong, I like Bill, but he should chill and fade into the background. He's not helping her.

Katczinsky · 02-18-2008, 02:17 PM

It may appear so that Bill is doing more harm than good, but seriously, would we be hearing about Hillary Clinton now if it weren't for her being the wife of Bill Clinton? Or George Bush being the son of George H. W. Bush? Or the Kennedy's??

Not to mention the Republicans are throwing a fit because there isn't a successor to the Reagan throne; as really the only political offspring of his went to the 'dark side' of liberalism (Ron Reagan).

For a country that likes to think of itself democratic we sure do like our dynasties.

Katczinsky · 02-18-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

There is a real reason why she has lost more and more of the Women's support, the Latino support, and the elderly support as evidenced in the last few primary sweeps by Obama.
Her money situation does not look promising either. Her campaign is in disarray when a campaign manager quits or is replaced at such a critical time as this. She has switched from "This is why you should vote for me" messages in her ads to "This is why you shouldn't vote for him" messages.
The polls do show her slightly ahead in the states with upcoming primaries. I believe that if she is swept again; it's all over for her.
I agree with FX; it's Obama's race to win or lose at this point. But he cannot lose. The support being shown Obama guarantees that he must be part of whatever ticket the Dems put forth in November. If he isn't; the GOP will own the White House for the next 16 years.

Even if Obama sweeps from now until the convention, he still won't have the needed number of delegates to officially have the nomination. He has to win like in the 60's with Clinton in the 30's in most of the major states (including Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania) to even have enough delegates. The former scenario is rare enough, and the latter we can probably agree upon to be impossible.

I seriously think when it comes down to it, this thing will either be decided by the superdelegates or by the re-inclusion of Florida's and Michigan's delegates. Either way it sounds like bad news for Obama. The real question is if he can gain enough pledged delegates to present a good enough argument at the convention for superdelegates to decide not to overturn the democratic decision of the people.

As for Obama being a part of the ticket no matter what, I think it's highly highly unlikely that Clinton would decide to put Obama on the ticket. It's much more likely that we'll see a Clinton-Edwards or Obama-Edwards ticket.

nuttyjoe · 02-18-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Even if Obama sweeps from now until the convention, he probably still won't have the needed number of delegates to officially have the nomination. He has to win like in the 60's with Clinton in the 30's in most of the major states (including Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania) to even have enough delegates. The former scenario is rare enough, and the latter we can probably agree upon to be impossible.

I seriously think when it comes down to it, this thing will either be decided by the superdelegates or by the re-inclusion of Florida's and Michigan's delegates. Either way it sounds like bad news for Obama. The real question is if he can gain enough pledged delegates to present a good enough argument at the convention for superdelegates to decide not to overturn the democratic decision of the people.

As for Obama being a part of the ticket no matter what, I think it's highly highly unlikely that Clinton would decide to put Obama on the ticket. It's much more likely that we'll see a Clinton-Edwards or Obama-Edwards ticket.

I disagree with you that it is unlikely for Hillary to include Obama as part of the ticket should she win. First, because with all the turmoil in her campaign; I don't think she can win. Second, Nobody has yet to explain the continued and expanding support Obama is receiving.
It is not just coming from the African-American vote. Obama is not running a campaign on the "vote for me because I'm Black" platform. People are disillusioned with the recent past in politics, and are nor clamoring for a change. Hillary is being veiwed as a part of that past; where nothing will change.
The funny thing is; I don't foresee either of them actually getting enough delegates on their own. But I foresee many of Hillary's delegates jumping ship to support Obama coming soon if she cannot turn her campaign around and get back on track. So far, Obama is what the people want to see on the Dem ticket-one way or another.

paradoxymoron · 02-18-2008, 11:16 PM

Obama may kill kittens but at least he doesn't huff them