In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 3947 of 8814
- next ›
Clinton, Edwards Campaigns Go Negative on Obama
So what does Clinton do to regain momentum in New Hampshire? Attack Obama from the right.
Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.
And what does Edwards do to keep Obama from getting the whole Iowa bounce? Attack Obama as a corporate tool.
Edwards' staff also immediately began to take shots at Obama: Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Edwards' manager David Bonior described Obama as a sellout to corporate America: "Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world."
Neither of these approaches look all that promising, from first glance. But this could get ugly. (Via Sirotablog)
It's no surprise that Edwards and Hillary would go negative after having their heads handed to them last night. What else can they do? They have snookered themselves by their own rhetoric and images.
Hillary's image was that she is the anointed heir to the throne and is touting her 35 years of experience in the political system as a plus. Then she got into trouble with her "man problems" (only 17 % of Democrat men would consider voting for her), some planted questions at a press conference, and some phony emails about Barack Obama being a Muslim and the next thing you know she's just part of the same-old same-old in a political environment that is demanding change. Her defeat in Iowa is huge. It explodes the myth that she's the new Chosen One and puts her politics in a trap that Houdini wouldn't be able to bust.
Edwards is a dead issue. The self-appointed Protagonist for the Common Man who gets $400 haircuts, lives in a 28,000 square foot mansion, and forecloses Katrina victims' mortgages for the hedge fund gazillionaires on Wall Street has now lost Iowa for the second time. But he doesn't seem to realize it. In his non-congratulation speech following the Iowa Caucus, he actually said that "tonight was a victory for change and a defeat for the status quo" (or something very close to that, you can look up the quote.) What he didn't "get" is that HE'S the status quo. He works for Wall Street, he voted for the Iraq War, he voted for the Patriot Act. Not only has he lost Iowa twice, he also didn't even carry his home state in 2004, losing to Bush/Cheney by a whopping 12%.
The question that Democrats need to be asking themselves now is "How much of this garbage spew can the party take?" Obama has run a squeaky clean campaign and has indicated no intention to change his strategy. If Edwards and Clinton insist on taking down the party with their own sinking campaigns, their supporters ought to realize that this is only going to hurt the chances of whoever wins the nomination, even if it's Hillary.
-Wexler
Right on Mr. Wexler! Clinton & Edwards have lost it for themselves. False attack after false attack against Obama can't cover what they really stand for or how they've voted in the Senate or the hypocrisy of their change message. Senator Obama runs a clean grassroots funded campaign! Obama 08!
Honestly, I don't think that a negative strategy is going to work. If Obama stays as positive now as he has been when under fire before, the voters are going to see something different, and people are tired of mud-slinging.
To be honest, I've supported Barack for some time now, and after the research I've done, I would not have cared what negative things Hillary's or Edwards's campaigns are saying (let the press screen the candidates, not the other candidates). That is, I wouldn't care, if it weren't for the fact that, should Obama loose, one of them might be president. I really want to see a President who is going to stay polite, stay on message, and "built our country up" not "tear people down". I honestly think that Obama won't resort to those tactics. Call me naive, but I've studied Barack, and I think he really is going to be the president to change politics as we know it. Mind you, even if he turned negative, I would support him. I don't think that denying that fact would be honest of me. However, I'd be immensely disappointed in him, but I still think he's the right person for the job.
But I hope that everything I just mention will be moot in about a month, as I hope that it is now. But if, for some reason, anyone involved in any of the campaigns is reading this right now, please, STAY POSITIVE! It is the right thing to do, even if at any point it isn't the smart thing to do. We need presidents that aren't afraid to do the right thing.
A Youth In America,
A hope from generations past through generation on the rise,
I am ready to work for the future.
I am ready to stand up for change.
I am ready to participate in politics.
I am ready to believe,
I am ready to rally behind Barack Obama.
Is atraction and fascination with the man that keep many americans awestruck. The man is Obama,and Obama is for many a charming,very capable and delivering lider with an honest twist dancing a new rithm in America.Rigth now the hope that he represent for the country is expanding throught the continental mass of the states and began to charm the world in the most positive way:an America truly committed to his most dearest ideals.A country were changes really happens and dreams became reality.
Healthcare Crisis in Politics
CEO and founder of RxPop.com says, "U.S. citizens are offered a health care system that is not only disgustfully inadequate and inefficient, but a complete and total moral ignominy. If the U.S. cannot adopt a more economical and stabilized health care system, citizens should be able to turn to Canada for help. Denying them this right could cost them their lives and that is unacceptable!"
Over 46.6 million Americans are uninsured, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage.
Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.
My fellow Americans, wake up! It's time for drastic change in U.S. Health Care Policy.
To watch videos of countless U.S. politicians speaking out on the Healthcare Crisis visit:
http://www.rxpop.com/politics.asp
the democratic partys best chance to elect a nominee is not obama. I fear that unfortunetly the race issue would still prevent his election.Being a pragmatic my belief is that Clinton is not an option either. If you want to talk about establishment candidates,she is the epitome.Despite your rhetoric,John Edwards is the most nationally electable candidate out there. I firmly believe that he will push for real change in this country.In an ideal world circumstances might make Obama a desirable and electable candidate but there is great doubt that time is here
Obama has not run a "squeaky clean campaign." Check out FactCheck.org to learn how he misrepresents his health plan.
I'm for Clinton. She's the only one who seems smart enough and has the real-world exposure to the political arena, both in the U.S. and in terms of foreign policy experience, to be an effective President.
I think Obama is an interloper. Same with Edwards. Smart guys, and Obama deserves credit for building a strong election campaign. But ultimately these guys aren't in the same league as Clinton.
Clinton has helped shape important new laws and programs, is known for working well with the other side of the aisle, and has a reputation as NY senator for "getting things done." When she ran for senator, a lot of New Yorkers, including myself, were skeptical. Then, we learned how effective she is -- and she won her second term with nearly 70% of the vote.
She'll get my vote for President, too.