bammy goes...positive?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 4:25pm

just last week it was being theorized and suggested by pundits and some from the bammy camp that he was going to go positive as a way to change things up and get back the momentum he'd lost.

evidently the people in his campaign were lying and the pundits were wrong. unless it's positive to attack hil as being untrustworthy. positively.
you can't trust that b*tch!

Posted: 5/5/08 at 4:33pm

He's POSITIVE she's an untrustworthy liar! What's so hard to understand?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 4:38pm

it's just so meta to decry politics as usual in an attack ad.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:08pm

The Obama campaign has been consistently negative since Pennsylvania.

They just keep blaming everything bad on the Clintons--JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS DO!

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:13pm

No one is innocent...

The negative ad onslaught continues in the Democratic race.

The latest installment: A 30-second spot from the Clinton campaign airing in North Carolina and Indiana, where voters go to the polls tomorrow.

"What's happened to Barack Obama?," an announcer asks as the spot opens. After a woman says she is living "paycheck to paycheck," he adds: "He's attacking Hillary’s plan to give you a break on gas prices because he doesn’t have one."

"Hillary wants the oil companies to pay for the gas tax this summer, so you don’t have to," the announcer adds. "Barack Obama want you to keep paying – $8 billion in all. Hillary's the one who gets it."

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:16pm

David Corn, Jay Cost, and others have posted recent analyses questioning the ferocity of Hillary Clinton's negative campaigning against Barack Obama. They may all be right, with the caveat that there may be method to the Clinton madness. It's hard to believe that a campaign which seems to poll for everything (Barbara Streisand's endorsement?) and plots so strategically would suddenly just fly off the handle in panic or hatred because the polls, as expected, have tightened a bit.

So why go negative? There are two possible reasons. The first is that Clinton would much rather face John Edwards in the later primaries than Obama.


WHAT?? Oh yeah I should have told you- that article about Clinton's negative attacks on Obama? From December 5 2007.

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:16pm

"'...well, now the fun part starts,' Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word 'fun.'"
Senator Clinton, telling reporters in Cedar Rapids about her plans to attack Democrats from now until the Iowa caucuses. [NYT, 12/2/07]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:18pm

February 04, 2008 - 7:07 am

Attacks by Hillary Clinton's campaign on Barack Obama in the days before last month's New Hampshire primary have reverberated in the state's pro-choice community long after the candidates moved to other states.

The anger and frustration among some members of the pro-choice community are rooted in two attacks: a Clinton flier that questioned Obama's voting record on abortion rights in Illinois, and a letter, signed by New Hampshire pro-choice activists, that implied Obama had "ducked" when abortion rights were at stake. Obama backers say the attacks misrepresented his votes and, in the hectic final days of a hard-fought contest, turned some voters against him.

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:20pm

ANDERSON, S.C. — Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton say they have concluded that Bill Clinton’s aggressive politicking against Senator Barack Obama is resonating with voters, and they intend to keep him on the campaign trail in a major role after the South Carolina primary.

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:21pm

COLUMBIA -- Former state Democratic Party chairman Dick Harpootlian said Tuesday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are practicing the politics of "personal destruction" in their bid to return to the White House, something he said he finds "reprehensible."

Harpootlian, a former prosecutor who shadowed the former president at an Aiken appearance Tuesday, said he believes the Clintons are doing the same thing in their attacks on Obama that Republicans did to them while Clinton was president.

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:28pm

"Once, Garry Thomas counted himself a Hillary Clinton supporter -- even signing up to be one of her 25 co-chairs in Iowa alongside with former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack. But Thomas now says he felt obliged to switch sides in recent weeks. 'I think the Clinton campaign went negative,' Thomas said in a telephone interview on Thursday." [Washington Post, 12/6/07]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:32pm

"The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 5:53pm

And the Obama campaign attacks her mercilessly for being untrustworthy and insincere and "Rovian"--and the bloggers and the MSNBC frat boys and YOU, my dear, chime in viciously.

And yet, somehow, SHE'S the one you say is campaigning "negatively."

Posted: 5/5/08 at 6:35pm

PJ sweetie, do you need new glasses? You said HE was the one resorting to "Republican" tactics and I said "No one is innocent."

Posted: 5/5/08 at 6:44pm

And the Empire Strikes Barack....
I'll never give into the dark side, Lord Clinton!

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 10:00pm

Joe - you can't put all your rants in one message? You had to leave 8 in a row?

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 10:00pm

Ooops - double post - sorry!!!! Updated On: 5/5/08 at 10:00 PM

Posted: 5/5/08 at 10:27pm

Pj is having such trouble reading things lately I wanted to make it easier for him to understand!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/5/08 at 10:28pm

Too many anti-Hillary posts make PJ's head explode!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/6/08 at 2:02pm

more lies from bammy.
even krugman says it oughta be retracted