Patterico's Pontifications

9/9/2008

Team Clinton Won’t Go Negative on Palin

Filed under: 2008 Election,Media Bias — DRJ @ 8:55 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

So far, Hillary Clinton has declined to join Obama in going negative on Sarah Palin.

What did Obama expect? He and his campaign spent months criticizing the Clintons for every negative comment. Why should Team Clinton go negative for Obama and risk alienating women, especially after Obama demonized them at every opportunity?

EDIT: Read the link. The author alternatively suggests that the Obama campaign decided not to ask the Clintons to attack Palin, both because they are intimidated by the McCain-Palin ticket and in an effort to marginalize the Clintons. I find that scenario unlikely but I’m adding it since it could be true. I’m obviously not privy to what’s happening inside the Obama campaign.

— DRJ

21 Responses to “Team Clinton Won’t Go Negative on Palin”

  1. Give her time to stoop to your expectations.

    i like america (f4c1e0)

  2. You know her better than we do.

    Icy Truth (171310)

  3. Hmm.. let’s say Clinton would agree, are PUMAS and sympathizers’s opinions still malleable by anything Hillary says on the campaign trail anymore, or are they by now beyond her influence?They seemed to have ignored her request to support Obama, so why would the Obama camp assume they’d turn around and do her bidding on the issue of Palin. The media would sure jump on that.

    Guvner (9af536)

  4. There was already a couple of notes on this topic, more directly from the Wolf’s mouth.

    Howard Wolfson

    Al (b624ac)

  5. Democrats must be damned if they do and damned if they don’t in your eyes.

    You complain about attacks by the media and Democrats against Palin. Here’s a Democrat not attacking Palin and instead of applauding, you assume there must be a hidden agenda.

    I hope Americans wake up to this nonsense. When and if they do the current poll numbers are gonna look backwards. Will you report it Patterico?

    Oiram (e48982)

  6. Yep, the first campaign in history when the spokeseman (press secretary in waiting) does not speak for the candidate. A new politics, indeed.

    Ed (f35a20)

  7. “So far, Hillary Clinton has declined to join Obama in going negative on Sarah Palin.”

    Kindly refresh my memory when Obama has gone negative on Palin.

    Policy yes. Otherwise I don’t recall.

    jharp (ef54fc)

  8. Kindly refresh my memory when Obama has gone negative on Palin.

    You are on to something there, jharp. Obama’s modus operandi is to avoid going negative on Palin himself, but to allow his surrogates to pile on to their heart’s delight. Once the general public begins to believe that they have gone over the line, Obama himself steps in and talks about how he abjures this sort of politics, in the hopes that he comes off looking principled instead of milquetoast. Jim Geraghty writes about it at National Review’s Campaign Spot.

    JVW (6c4300)

  9. Yeah. Instead he just calls her “mother, governor, moose shooter”. Negative? or just disparaging? That was from today. It was the other day when he called her hometown “Wasilly” and bragged that his campaign has more employees than the town.

    Icy Truth (f6198c)

  10. Icy, I am getting the impression that Senator Obama actually thinks he can play both sides this way…but as you point out, he has recently removed the gloves. So much for Hope&Change.

    But I do not believe that Senator Obama has ever faced a genuine campaign with real competition. He does now. With the press so far in the tank for him, it’ll be interesting to see if he continues to flub things.

    Eric Blair (36c1a9)

  11. An Obama ad currently calls McCain / Palin liars. But I’m sure jharp will find a “hey, look over there!” topic to introduce.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  12. But I do not believe that Senator Obama has ever faced a genuine campaign with real competition.

    Well, he got waxed when he challenged Bobby Rush for a Congressional seat back in 2000 or thereabouts. I would love to learn more about that race from someone who is not an Obama acolyte. What mistakes did he make in that race? What could he have done differently? I think it would tell us a lot about how he will handle this current predicament.

    JVW (6c4300)

  13. JVW,

    “You are on to something there, jharp. Obama’s modus operandi is to avoid going negative on Palin himself, but to allow his surrogates to pile on to their heart’s delight.”

    So in other words he hasn’t. That’s what I thought.

    DRJ. You have made a poorly researched or flat out dishonest post.

    jharp (ef54fc)

  14. jharp, is Obama not the head of his campaign? If your side was as willing to exculpate George W. Bush from the mistakes made by members of his Administration, I might consider siding with you in this argument. As it stands, though, I think you are being too clever by half.

    JVW (6c4300)

  15. JVW,

    “You are on to something there, jharp. Obama’s modus operandi is to avoid going negative on Palin himself, but to allow his surrogates to pile on to their heart’s delight.”

    So in other words he hasn’t. That’s what I thought.

    DRJ. You have made a poorly researched or flat out dishonest post.

    Comment by jharp — 9/9/2008 @ 11:35 pm

    jharp, is Obama not the head of his campaign? If your side was as willing to exculpate George W. Bush from the mistakes made by members of his Administration, I might consider siding with you in this argument. As it stands, though, I think you are being too clever by half.

    Comment by JVW — 9/9/2008 @ 11:44 pm

    Alright, I’ll bite.

    Who are the Obama surrogates that you refer to that have piled on high?

    And please make it clear as to your definition of an Obama surrogate.

    jharp (ef54fc)

  16. I provided a link to a list of them in my comment above, #9: Howard Gutman (one of his finance men) and the appallingly bad Robert Wexler are two excellent examples, not to mention his legion of supporters among the media, the nutroots, the Hollywood Left, and a**hole British comedians who host awards shows on MTV.

    JVW (6c4300)

  17. Granted, the rabble I mentioned in the latter part (media, nutroots, Hollywood) aren’t official campaign surrogates, though I won’t hold my breath waiting for Obama to say to Jann Wenner, “Hey, that hit piece that US Magazine did on Gov. Palin was pretty bad. I’m not going to accept your money and I’m not interested in Rolling Stone’s endorsement.”

    JVW (6c4300)

  18. #17 JVW- hey, watch out there. You are dissing my esteemed Congressman, Bobby Wexler. I think Wexler could get away with most anything and the local Jews would support him. From what I’ve seen he has the Jooos I know falling in line adoringly behind Obama. They don’t give a rat’s ass about any purported Obama scandals or deficiencies; it’s all about McCain=Bush and Palin’s radicalism guaranteeing women will lose control over their own reproductive organs and gays being abused/losing prospective equal rights.

    Amuses me the Euroweenies adore Obama and loathe the Jews. I harp on Jews because they rule here in Palm Beach and don’t realize Obama really cares more about the feelings of the Palis. And with all that, we find leaders from the right being elected in Europe.

    Would be interesting to hear what the Clintons really talk about in private vis a vis Obama and his apparent main opponent Palin. I guess Joe Biden is left out in the cold.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  19. If Obama loses this election Hillary will come back in a big way. She will position herself as the ultimate centrist and have a good chance to pull off the upset in 2012. Obama’s campaign shows his inexperience in many things such as this latest “surprise” that Hillary won’t go negative.

    voiceofreason2 (4c64ff)

  20. “RJ. You have made a poorly researched or flat out dishonest post.”

    “Your facts I find most incovenient and they also make my head hurt – so here instead are some half – truths I tell myself to make the owie go away.”

    Dmac (e639cc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2831 secs.