<p>I LOVE negative campaigning, and it is the only way I ever learn anything of value about a candidate, both how they portray their opponents, and how they respond to them. </p>
<p>I just wish they could be a little nastier.</p>
<p>I think you will have plenty of enjoyment this election cycle then, Mini.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me, too. If it weren’t for slinging mud at each other, we’d have to listen to nothing but speeches about motherhood, apple pie, waving flags, puppies, and unicorns.</p>
<p>There’s something to be said for a brass-knuckled power politician (where’s LBJ when we need him!). But, then again, I live in a state where the two Bulger brothers ran the State House and organized crime, respectively – with the same “break your knees if you cross me” tactics.</p>
<p>Who wants to a listen to bunch of positive sweet-nothings? I want candidates who can differentiate themselves from each other, preferably by digging up dirt on each other’s bedrooms (or wherever they choose to do it.)</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>It’s also more fun to forget what the candidates are saying, but watch how they are saying it. For example, the lead videos on the Clinton and Obama websites.</p>
<p>Clinton is sitting at a desk in an setting clearly intended to mimic an Oval Office speech to the nation visual, rattling off a five point plan on something or other. I would call this the “look presidential” style.</p>
<p>Obama’s show him entering a crowd to flash bulbs and blaring music, people scrambling to touch him and saying absolutely nothing. I would call this the “rock star” style.</p>
<p>These styles are not accidents.</p>
<p>Digi, anent the Republicans, there’s going to be a wonderful anvil strapped to their ankles before they’re pitched into the sea moment: when Bush speaks at the Republican convention, no matter who the GOP nominee is. They’ll be lucky to hold their “bounce” to -4.</p>
<p>I had lunch today with a friend and old campaign hand. He liked me idea of a political cartoon for the Democrats: Hillary, Barack, and John Edwards sitting at a poker table. Hillary is looking at her cards and beaming. Barack is looking at his cards and beaming. Edwards is looking at his cards and thinking, “Damn. Busted straight, busted flush.” I think he gets nailed in the crossfire but winds but having influence due to the terrain staked out on economic issues.</p>
<p>But neither of us could figure out the GOP scenario. I finally offered to put $5 on a late successful run by Newt Gingich as he makes a broken field run across the field while avoiding the debris of the McCain/Giuliani/Romney/Brownback/Huckabee destruction derby.</p>
<p>From purely the standpoint of high drama, Hillary vs. Newt gives us a nice movie sequel. Or maybe it’s more like one of those “Halloween” movies.</p>
<p>X-posted. ID, you’re on to something about the styles. Imo, Hillary against anyone else is like the Wermacht vs. Poland in the first round. Only a “rock star” campaign has a chance of success and I think Barack is the only one who can pull that off. I think, much to Edwards’ disgust, he’s already positioned himself as the “anti-Hillary.”</p>
<p>I think we may yet see a late move by Chuck Hagel. (watching him on the talk shows, I don’t know how one could conclude that he is NOT running.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s how I see it playing out, too. The party turns to Newt late as the only candidate capable of tossing real red meat to the crowd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From a Democratic perspective, I want Newt. I don’t want some watered-down Northeast liberal Republican who might be able to generate some appeal to the middle. I want Newt, who represents everything the Republicans stand for: “family valyoos”, budget be damned, cut taxes for the wealthy again, and so forth. Plus, he just drips sanctimonious arrogance. He makes Hillary look warm and fuzzy.</p>
<p>Hagel reads the same list of Republican absurdities as the next fellow, and all of sudden, things look wide open. He carries none of the McCain/Giuliani/Romney/Gingrich baggage, speaks the conservative mantras convincingly, and could literally run away from Bush, and do so with authority. He has plenty of money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Obama’s rock star candidacy is smart strategy, especially for club fighter who has never had a professional bout, let alone a championship prize fight. He can’t afford to have the campaign turn on issues, experience, and record.</p>
<p>It could be a winning strategy. It would be a great strategy in a normal year against a normal front-runner. A little tougher when the front-runner has Bill Clinton and 15 years of tentacles through out the party structure.</p>
<p>For example, Clinton sucker punched Obama today on this Geffen flap. Got Obama to defend Geffen’s attack on Bill Clinton and then compound it with a campagin statement attacking Bill Clinton. When asked about the flap at the candidates forum today, Hillary smiles sweetly, steps to the front of the stage, and asks of the gathered Dem faithful, “I think Bill Clinton was a pretty good president, what about you?”</p>
<p>Oh, and then Clinton gets Richardson to start his speech calling for all Dems to sign a pledge not to attack each other and saying that Obama should disavow Geffen’s attack.</p>
<p>It’s a real conundrum for the challengers. Running against Bill Clinton’s legacy is about as promising for a Dem as attacking Saint Reagan for a Republican. Hillary can just turn any attack into an attack on Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>“Rock star” is the only approach that avoids all those pitfalls, but it’s tough to go a full year without saying anything on the campaign trail.</p>
<p>The political problem for Hillary is that every reference to Bill is a two-edged sword. For those who have fond memories of the child murderer, she comes across as distinctly lightweight, tired, and overscripted. For those who don’t like him, she comes across as more of the same. </p>
<p>Frankly, I think she is going to deconstruct on the war issue, and is going to be hard to glue back together. Give it time…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She’s trading off primary capital for a better position in the general election. Keep in mind that a recent poll showed nationwide voters picking Clinton as the candidate (of all Dems and Repubs) who would be the “toughest on terriorism”.</p>
<p>She doesn’t want to distance herself from her Iraq authorization vote.</p>
<p>BTW, her “look presidential” video details a five-point “plan” for getting out of Iraq. She actually has the strongest soundbyte: “If President Bush has not gotten us out of Iraq before he leaves office, when I’m President in 2009, I will.”</p>
<p>Remember the Dean “shooting star”. A middle-of-the-road Guv from Vermont should have been a non-entity. </p>
<p>She IS trading off primary capital, and I think it is going to sink her.</p>
<p>The other interesting dynamic is that none of the second-tier Democratic candidates gain anything by attacking Clinton because Obama has the “not-Clinton” slot nailed down. For Edwards or any other candidate to get anywhere, their first order of business has to be to replace Obama as the “not-Clinton” candidate.</p>
<p>Precisely why this guru (who is ALWAYS wrong) thinks it is going to Hagel/Obama in '08.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And remember what sunk him. A club fighter who had never stepped out of the local gym, Dean self-destructed on the campaign trail when he started taking heavyweight figher uppercuts and left hooks. To win a Presidential nomination, you have absorb heavy punches and still keep your cool even when you are dazed and staggering on the campaign trail ropes.</p>
<p>It’s very hard to do that the first time in the ring.</p>
<p>Right. And Hillary has never been in the ring, and (because of “expectations”) has almost no margin of error.</p>
<p>I disagree with that. IMO, Hillary was always the “brass-knuckles” of the Clinton campaigns. He was the glad-hander, she was the fighter. Nothing hones political skills like being in the White House for eight years. The wet behind the ears characterization was true 14 years ago when she “effed up” the health care reform issue. She’s learned how to take a punch in the intervening decade +.</p>
<p>She has shown herself to be a skilled political operative in her six years in the US Senate. Just like she went to South Carolina trumpeting the legislation she’s sponsored with favorite-son Lindsey Graham, she’s almost certainly laid the groundwork for similar talking points in every primary state. She’s noted for working with Republicans, which is why former opponents like R. Murdoch donate to her campaigns.</p>
<p>Never been in the ring? I would be hard pressed to name a politician who has taken the attacks Hillary has endured for 15 years. I don’t know any other Dem candidate who has been accused of being homosexual, murdering an aid, or having a child with unruly hair. Obama and Edwards don’t know what a heavy punch is compared to Clinton.</p>