Why Clinton's Surrogates have gotten dirty

[grantcart]

We all know that Clinton's have played this game at a much higher level than anyone else for a long time. When surrogates all of a sudden started a bizarre set of attacks that bring up Obama's youthful activities, raise the question of race, "shucking and jiving" etc. It appears that having found her voice in New Hampshire their campaign has become entirely unbalanced. When you see top level professionals acting like amateurs you have to know that something else is happening

It is classic Clinton distraction. Start a phony war over phony issues. Why?

Look at the South Carolina Polls

Clinton Obama
PPP 1/12 31 44
Rasmussen 1/9 30 42
Insider 1/7 33 40
Survey 1/6 30 50

Facing a clear loss in South Carolina takes away all of their momentum and opens Super Tuesday way up. The Clinton's are baking up a fake controversy so that rather than having an honest face to face contest where they lose by double digits so that they can walk away from the drubbing they are going to take in South Carolina by calling it a mis understanding over a local disagreement. They want to discredit the results from being a clear result of a fair election so that it will be dismissed by the pundits by saying "the results were muddled by all of the unfortunate misunderstanding which is now behind us.

Be prepared for more of the same because the Clintons will do anything to say that the South Carolina results do not represent the authentic voices of democrats there.

The Clintons as victims of Obama's terrible racial manipulation.

Are you kidding me?

[Marrah_G]

1. Thank you for your concern n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Who started this surrogate crap? nt

[durrrty libby]

7. It seems Charlie Rangel is carrying Hillary's baby. That's what surrogates do, no?

:shrug:

[niceypoo]

3. Only Obama can end all of the race crap

and he chooses not to.

[Barack_America]

13. Wow, you actually believe that, don't you?

That's crazy! I'll see you later? Bye!

[Quixote1818]

19. He ended what Hillary started tonight. Did you miss it? nt

[aquart]

4. Thank for your concern.

I know John Edwards would not be proud of this.

[AtomicKitten]

5. The Clintons will be the victims of their own sordid attempts to win by any means necessary.

[msongs]

6. umm, you forgot to include any proof of your assertions nt

[grantcart]

10. Evidence here it is

1) Clinton's are master strategists

2) Clinton's are looking at 15-20 point loss in South Carolina

3) South Carolina comes right before Super Tuesday

4) Numerous surrogates start a series of bizarre cuts on Obama many of them code words on race. Here is a long summary of them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4065877&mesg_id=4065877

5) The proof of a future event is of course in the future. There will be continued diversions and false controversies and then the day after the South Carolina Primary the spin will come out citing all of the false controversies.

It is interesting that you do not contradict the basic premises;

a) You have alto of smart political veterans acting like idiots
b) Clinton is seriously behind in South Carolina

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Evidence?

Hand-waving, more attacks on HRC, and "you just don't get it" don't count except as diversions.

Meanwhile, there are actual issues of policy that can be debated.

--p!

[grantcart]

11. see post #10

[Dogmudgeon]

14. I'll take you up on that

1) Clinton's are master strategists

Irrelevant. Being good at strategy doesn't make you crooked.

2) Clinton's are looking at 15-20 point loss in South Carolina

Evidence? Most of the polls have Obama ahead by only a few points, but volatility is so high that it's anybody's race.

3) South Carolina comes right before Super Tuesday

This still isn't evidence of anything, and you still have not given any evidence of the Clintons' crookedness -- only your assertion that it is so.

4) Numerous surrogates start a series of bizarre cuts on Obama many of them code words on race.

The information at the link is weak, to say the least. E.g., it cites Hillary's involvement in the Goldwater campaign -- at age 16. It's the same kind of thing you're saying -- "the Clintons are crooked because the Clintons are crooked". Most of it is spun interpretations of the kind both candidates rejected this afternoon; but some is just malicious GOP gossip dating to the 1990s.

5) The proof of a future event is of course in the future. There will be continued diversions and false controversies and then the day after the South Carolina Primary the spin will come out citing all of the false controversies.

Fortune-telling makes your job a whole lot easier, doesn't it? So you really have no evidence at all.

"Bhuddist Democrat"

So much for "Right Speech".

--p!

[grantcart]

21. On the emperical side you are 100% wrong

The argument is based on logic and you have not disputed any of it except to say that it is not proof.

It is an acknowledged future event that I am suggesting answers the premise of why such intelligent experienced political experts are "shucking and jiving" as one surrogate said you cannot do at a press conference. You dont dispute the premise that intelligent political experts are acting like idiots so I would welcome your counter prevailing theory. The 'proof' you want we will all know the day after the primary.

The only emperical part of the arguemnt is the polls and you are 100% wrong and here is my citation:

http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Five polls have been done in SC since NH all show Hillary at 30-31% No movement at all. In the last 4 polls Obama has fluctuated between 42 and 40. An earlier poll had him at 50.

I am waiting your citation that shows quote

Most of the polls have Obama ahead by only a few points, but volatility is so high that it's anybody's race unquote

It is clear that the race up until the Clinton campaign started its recent bizarre series of attacks was not a few points and also not volatile. I would say that I await your citation showing evidence but is clear that you only ask for evidence you don't use it and cannot provide. Just another empty pair of lips flapping for the Clintons.

[Dogmudgeon]

22. And I'll take YOU up on that

"Five polls have been done in SC since NH all show Hillary at 30-31% No movement at all. In the last 4 polls Obama has fluctuated between 42 and 40. An earlier poll had him at 50.

I am waiting your citation that shows quote

Most of the polls have Obama ahead by only a few points, but volatility is so high that it's anybody's race unquote"

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Five polls, huh? There are no fewer that 20 polling organizations following this election nationally. Obama's lead today is right outside the MoE for most of the polls. The outfit you cite appears to do entirely meta-analysis: analysis of data collected by others. That's fine, but if you want to use it as "ammunition" in your war, you are going to have to make a better case than that.

Look at your own data set. Obama's up a cozy nine points according to one unified, not five individual, polls; that's quite optimistic, and I'm sure it pleases Obama partisans. It should NOT please Obama. And USAElectionPolls cites several other polls that show differing results. For example, Rasmussen shows clear losses for Obama this week. His is not a comfortable lead. Obama strategists would be idiots to gloat at this point. In fact, the Obama organization continues their efforts.

None of the campaigns should expect this to be a cakewalk. Which was my point about the election -- except that you, and a number of other people, are reading insults in every phrase you don't like. (But calling the Clintons crooks is okay.)

The NH polling was quite wrong, even the internal polling for Team Clinton, and I susepct we will see several more surprises, favoring either Hillary or Obama at different points.

"The argument is based on logic and you have not disputed any of it except to say that it is not proof."

Wrong and more wrong. I called for evidence to support the "proof" that the Clintons are crooked. I demonstrated that the assertion that the Clintons are crooks to be gossip and wishful thinking (to put it charitably). No evidence of their alleged perfidy was produced. Which was the original point. My secondary assertion was that the race is too tight for anyone to call with mathematical confidence. And I stand by each of my assertions.

If you want to fight over "Clinton Sucks" vs. "Obama Sucks", do it elsewhere.

--p!

[Tulkas]

9. Voter Suppression 101

Negative campaigns turn off people to the democratic process.

Obama is pulling in more people to the process and the Clintons can't win that way. They need the Bush tactic of a deeper base, not a wider one. We already know that roughly 45% of Americans won't ever vote for Hillary so they need to get some of those people not to vote at all.


FIrst there was the collage kids in Iowa, now the Nevada caucus problems. Add in the constant mud slinging and you have a classic voter suppression effort underway.

BTW, I think that 45% went up a bit in the last few days.

[rasputin1952]

16. If that were true...

"Negative campaigns turn off people to the democratic process.", and unfortunately it doesn't seem to resonate, the R party would have been burned long ago.

They have survived by berating and demeaning anyone who has stood in their way.

I think the electorate, although capable of being swayed by "negativity", has seen the very serious negative consequences of having one of the most miserable failures of all time occupy the WH. The fact the bush has done more harm to this country than anyone previously, is the one single "negative" that cannot be over looked. Since the current crop of GOP candidates are out of the same vegetable bin, "negativity" is serving a purpose...a fine purpose. After all, his actions will keep the neo-cons away from power for a generation.

[cloudythescribbler]

12. protestations to the contrary aside, the OP describes a PART of the HRC strategy

I think it really is broader -- with the idea that if Obama is identified in voters' minds as like 'another Jesse Jackson', HRC will win in a cakewalk.

The strategy can backfire and hopefully will, alienating both white and latino voters if they see through the protestations and recognize the self-conscious HRC campaign strategy of what is called in Russian provokatsiia

[Tweed]

15. So what you are saying is this is politics

You are correct sir!

[Quixote1818]

17. Can you imagine John Kerry making the MLK Jr. comment in his race with Bush?

Funny how it popped up in a race where the black guy is winning. And to think Hillary supporters can't see that that was planned for a reaction. Un-Fucking believable! Wake the hell up to the real world people. Politics is nasty shit and the Clinton's are masters at it.

[DrFunkenstein]

18. I'm Waiting for Rumors That Obama Has Black Children

No!!!!!!!!! It's McCain all over!!!!

[Quixote1818]

20. No, his real sin was wanting to be president when he was in Kindergarten. nt

[beachmom]

23. Actually, the only sin Obama has committed that bother the Clintons

is running for president the same year the annointed Queen was supposed to a shoo-in.

[ellacott]

25. That's it in a nutshell n/t

[rox63]

24. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

:rofl:

[robbedvoter]

26. Because of the truce, I won't get into who started "the war". Both ended it

and let's leave it at that. Your candidate asked you to stop too.