Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What the Hillary Camp's Goal Is...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:26 PM
Original message
What the Hillary Camp's Goal Is...
It is strikingly clear how the Clinton camp is trying to frame this story. Clinton's campaign advisor (or whatever he does) was on Hardball tonight and basically lied when he called Geffen Obama's campaign manager. And he didn't just do this once, but 2 or 3 times!! Geffen has nothing at all to do with the Obama campaign, he is not involved with how it's being run in any way, shape, or form. So why should Obama apologize for something he said? The Clinton camp is obviously mad that so many people in Hollywood are turning their backs on them, and are now trying to use Geffen's comments against Obama in an attempt to make him look like a liar about being for a new type of politics.

It's stupid, it's like my brother beating somebody up at school and the principal calling me to the office telling me to apologize to the boy when I didn't have anything to do with it. Then the Clinton camp says, "well Hillary apologized for what Ford said." Again, this is not so, Clinton said that she didn't agree with him...she didn't say "I'm sorry" to Obama like she wants him to say to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. They'd better pray like hell Al Gore doesn't run.
Cause all this jockeying will have been in vain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. So far
It looks like he WON'T run...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Proof? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Al Gore himself
How many times he has said he has no intention of running? Yes, I know that "he hasn't ruled it out completely yet", but so far his answer has been, consistently, a negative one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. The man in your avatar said the same thing...
....He insisted and insisted he wasn't going to run in 2008. How did that turn out? ;)

Hey, I'm not mad Obama got in. I like Obama a lot, but I think just because you say you have no intention of running doesn't ALWAYS mean you aren't at least considering it and looking out of the corner of your eye for some possible way you could get in and make a huge splash.

That is what Obama did, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Try the opposite logic...
Suppose Al intends to seek the nomination, but we know he hates being a candidate (in which he is totally justified). Then it makes sense that he will deflect questions of running until the very last minute. If he wants to avoid being a candidate as long as he can while keeping a campaign engine running, he can't say he isn't running, nor can he say he is, and to say nothing would create an assumption in the affirmative. THEREFOR, for one to say he is "NOT RUNNING" based upon his statements to date is, well, somewhat lacking in logic or wisdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. Nope. I love Al but he should not run. ...partly because he would not win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Care to expand? I don't buy it, he never lost in the first place.
How would he lose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Never lost what - 2000? Weren't we talking about 2008?
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 10:49 PM by jefferson_dem
In my view, the public is ready for something new and different in '08, however trite that sounds. Further, i haven't seen any evidence that a Gore candidacy would galvanize enough support among rank-in-file voters to actually win...either the nomination or the general. If you think i'm wrong, please help enlighten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. If Gore were to run, what would you do?
It's funny that I have yet to find anyone who says they wouldn't vote for Gore if he were to run. Anyone?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-23-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Stay with my current preference. Of course, if Al won the nom, i would enthusiastically
support him in the General. Silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traveling_Home Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. That sounds more like Republicans n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. This "attack early and often" nonsense is already getting on my last nerve, and it is only Feb '06
I wish the candidates would make nice a little longer, because this is going to get damn old by the time primary/caucus season starts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. So in essence, they are Michael Mooring Obama.....
Which is what was done to Wes Clark. Michael Moore called Bush a deserter, and Wes Clark got called on it as though the words had came out of his mouth. Of course he was dogged with this till the New Hampshire vote. When asked at the debate how could he have stood on the state when Michael Moore said this, Clark stated that Michael Moore was free to speak what he felt, since Freedom of Speech was still an option in this country.

Didn't help Wes Clark though. The press ran with it and never looked back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I don't know about that...
Which is what was done to Wes Clark. Michael Moore called Bush a deserter, and Wes Clark got called on it as though the words had came out of his mouth. Of course he was dogged with this till the New Hampshire vote. When asked at the debate how could he have stood on the state when Michael Moore said this, Clark stated that Michael Moore was free to speak what he felt, since Freedom of Speech was still an option in this country.

Didn't help Wes Clark though. The press ran with it and never looked back.


Maybe. But Obama's group seems like they wouldn't put up to be framed like that. So far they've been at the top of their game. Besides, Wes Clark wasn't seen as a frontrunner in 2004...so the way the media goes about Obama may be different than what they did with Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Actually he was seen as one of the front runners at that point
A poll done the first week of January 2004, had Clark as a close second to Dean. That is better than Obama's current position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Actually, you must have forgotten that Wes Clark was a frontrunner in the 2004
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 10:44 PM by FrenchieCat
Primaries although "they" tried hard to get rid of him.

Many attempted to call him "fading away" all throughout November and December. Then, in early January of 2004, a suprise....Wes Clark had risen, not fallen in the national and state polls. In fact, he was in 2nd place after Howard Dean...while everyone else was behind those two!

There were 9 candidates.....and right prior to Iowa when the primaries got hot.....Clark was a front runner, actually only 2nd to Howard Dean!

Clark's biggest downfall; Not contesting Iowa, the Michael Moore flap and not being able to get barely any media attention for positives that his campaign or he did.

Pre Iowa, Clark was still doing well everywhere.....and then Iowans voted, the New Hampshire debate occurred, and the one man race of Howard Dean as the headline suddently became the two men race of Kerry and Edwards and the Dean scream!

Although people now forget, Wes Clark did quite well in 2004 although he got the least amount of media exposures than any other Frontrunner ever. The entire time that Clark was running 2nd only to Dean, the free publicity went only to Howard Dean. It is as though the media didn't want it to be a two men race if Clark was going to be the 2nd man. Soon after Iowa, when Clark was no longer running 2nd, then it suddently became a two man race.....with Clark running 3rd.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clark_did_hella_goodthe_20.html

As a big supporter of Wes Clark, I will never forget how the media refused to talk about him unless they were attacking him. They barely showed him on the cable news. Most Clark supporters remember how obvious it was; the media was fixing the race! Why do you think I distrust the media as much as I do...and why do you think that what's happening one year before the vote will mean anything a year later? take it from me; it won't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN) -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean still leads retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to a recent national poll, and two-thirds of Democrats say either man would be good for the party as the nominee.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll interviewed 1,003 adult Americans last weekend, including 410 registered voters who described themselves as Democrats, to gather opinions on the presidential candidates and the issues they face.

Dean was the favorite of 26 percent of Democrats polled, and Clark was 6 percentage points behind.
http://www.alazhari.unv.net/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/12/elec04.poll.prez/index.html
---------------
January 07, 2004
Clark Surging, Dean Falling

In the national polls, Howard Dean is suddenly plummeting, and Wesley Clark is surging, according to Gallup.
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005908.html

------------------
January 8, 2004, Thursday
Howard Dean, with wary eye on Wesley Clark's rise in national and New Hampshire polls, is watching his words on presidential campaign trail in wake of statements that have unleashed criticism from Democratic opponents; CNN/USA Today poll shows Dean lead over Clark shrinking to four points, elating Clark camp as retired general attends town hall meetings in New Hampshire
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C17FE35550C7B8CDDA80894DC404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fD%2fDemocratic%20Party

---------------------


Wesley Clark closes gap on Democratic frontrunner Dean
Independent, The (London), Jan 9, 2004 by Andrew Buncombe in Washington

WESLEY Clark is closing in on his rival, the Democratic front- runner Howard Dean, according to a number of new polls that suggest support for the former general has soared in recent weeks.

Mr Dean still tops the Democratic field, but the 21 point lead he held over the former general and Nato chief less than a month ago has been narrowed to just four points,
according to a Gallup poll conducted for USA Today and CNN.

General Clark is second in Democratic national polls, as well as in the vital New Hampshire primary, held on 27 January, where he trails Mr Dean by 17 points but is ahead of Senator John Kerry by six points.

Behind these numbers is a fluid situation that suggests General Clark has been making headway over other Democratic candidates, as Mr Dean's once seemingly unstoppable rise has been halted by a number of gaffes, ill-considered comments and a concerted barrage of criticism from his opponents.

In a clear sign that the Dean campaign is starting to worry about General Clark's chances in New Hampshire, the first state to vote, staffers have been staking out his campaign appearances and passing out fliers and leaflets accusing him of being "pro-war" and questioning whether he was a "true" Democrat. Jay Carson, Mr Dean's spokesman, said the campaign was simply "pointing out facts that the American people should know about".
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20040109/ai_n9683842


January 14, 2004; 10:46 a.m.
Clark gaining in N.H. Edwards in Iowa

Two polls show that Wesley Clark is moving up in New Hampshire and that Edwards and Kerry are moving in Iowa. This could be an interesting year yet! Watch for Edwards to do better in Iowa and get a bump for N.H. Here is the Boston Herald poll in N.H.

"Surging: Herald poll: Clark soars, Kerry fades in N.H. By David R. Guarino Wednesday, January 14, 2004

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has surged to within striking range of Howard Dean in the New Hampshire primary, narrowing Dean's once-gaping lead to nine points as the race enters its home stretch, a new Boston Herald poll shows.

Buoyed by strong support among moderates and men who favor his Army resume and tempered views over Dean's ideological bombast, Clark has outpaced Sen. John F. Kerry as Dean's chief New Hampshire hurdle.

``Clark is the one candidate that really seems to have some momentum now,'' said Herald pollster R. Kelly Myers. Relentless attacks on Dean by Kerry and U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman have hurt the former Vermont governor, pulling him down to 29 percent with Clark at 20 percent in the poll.
http://www.political.com/analysis-arc/0517.html
----------------------
1/23/2004
MANCHESTER, NH - John Kerry maintained his lead over Howard Dean in the latest New Hampshire tracking poll of likely Democratic voters taken January 21 - 22. The two day rolling average of 400 respondents gave Kerry the lead with 26% followed by Dean at 19% and Wesley Clark with 17%. The survey carries an error rate of +/- 4.90%

"After four days of strong movement from John Kerry, it appears that the race has settled in with Kerry leading," said David Paleologos, political pollster and Director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. However, the race is not over. Wesley Clark is beginning to close in on the leaders and there are still 26% of likely voters still undecided."
http://www.suffolk.edu/16036.html


POST-IOWA NUMBERS FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE. Even before the caucus results were in, it was clear that NH primary voters also sensed the new energy coming from the John Kerry campaign. Just compare these polls ... Pre-Iowa WHDH-TV poll numbers from Monday: Dean-23%, Kerry-20%, Clark-15%. Edwards and Lieberman were in the single digits, while 26% said they were still undecided. Post-Iowa WHDH-TV poll numbers released Wednesday: Dean-22%, Kerry-20%, Clark-15%, Edwards and Lieberman tied at 6% each, Kucinich-1%, and Undecided-29%. The American Research Group NH Poll (released Wednesday) is also post-Iowa: Dean-26%, Kerry-24%, Clark-18%, Edwards-9%, Lieberman-7%. Stay tuned.

MORE P2004 NUMBERS. The latest numbers out of New Hampshire show Dean continuing to lead, but Kerry quickly bouncing back into the contest. New Hampshire (ARG tracking poll): Dean-28%, Clark-20%, Kerry-19%, Edwards-8%, Lieberman-6%, and Gephardt-3%. New Mexico holds its primary of February 3, and that raise is also a close contest. The numbers (Albuquerque Journal): Dean-18%, Clark-16%, Kerry and Lieberman tied with 8% each, Gephardt-6%, and Kucinich and Edwards tied with 4% each. Here are also the latest numbers from California (Field Poll): Dean-25%, Clark-20%, Lieberman-12%, Kerry-7%, Gephardt-6%, and Edwards, Sharpton and Kucinich with 3% apiece.
http://www.politics1.com/blog-0104a.htm







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. unfortunately, this isn't really helping either campaign, IMHO
I'dreallyl like to get some adults running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. "Clinton's campaign advisor (or whatever he does)". Since you're
complaining about titles and positions being attributed incorrectly, how about you providing the so-called "Clinton campaign advisor's" name and title in your report?

How do we know he's not just some MSNBC pundit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. His name is Howard Wolfson....
...said to be communications director for the Clinton campaign...

This site has a link to the interview titled, "Is Hillary above criticism"... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Wolfson is part of her insiders' inside
He's also brilliant. If he gave a false impression that is exactly what he meant to do. Wolfson is not a newbee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Wolfson's smooth a silk. (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Perhaps. And i know of Wolfson from 2000 and back. But today he came across as *smarmy*
not silky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. His five O'clock shadow is off putting to some, but he has a mind like a steel trap.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Thanks. (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. That guy seems to be extremely arrogant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
26. I can't believe how enmeshed DU is in this bullshit.
It's like junior high school.
And so is politics.
A perfect marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. LOL. Perfect response. Thank you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
28. What the Hillary Camp's goal is?
Ummmmm, to win?

Someone asked a similar question earlier about Obama's strategy. Ummm again, winning!!

It's Democratic Royal Rumble, and first man/woman over the top rope loses. The winner goes onto the big contest, and hopefully delievers the knockout blow to the Republicans.

:nuke: <-- Republicans in 2008 when we take back the WH, and regain majority in Congress and majority in number of Governorships!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC