The gutter:
ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well.
Free from campaign finance rules, ALP will not be legally permitted to coordinate with the Clinton campaign, but it is clearly intended to help her.
***“Our purpose is to encourage audiences to look beyond the campaign speeches and political rhetoric to specific proposals to address these core issues,” says an ALP mission statement obtained by ABC News.
The plan right now is for the TV ads to never actually mention Obama — rather, the statements about rhetoric vs. reality will go after him through implication, the contrast between Clinton and Obama already being so well-known.
Of course, the Clinton campaign is pulling their best Sgt. Schultz and knows nothing, nothing at all about this. Earlier, a valid question was raised in the comments:
Looking over the race, how much of Obama’s criticism of Clinton have been o f the nature that would harm her and the party’s chances in the general election? I seriously cannot think of any. While everything—EVERYTHING—coming out from the Clinton camp is stuff that can be picked up and used by the Republicans in one way or another or is designed to damage him as a candidate going forward as much if not more than it impacts him now…
He seems to have stuck more or less to contrasting the two of them before Democrats while she goes on stage last night and claims he’s not ready to be PResident.
They will destroy the Democratic party rather than give up this nomination. And don’t tell me I am a Clinton hater for pointing out what is now obvious to everyone. The only thing the Clinton campaign can do at this point is go negative, and they are going to go full-bore negative.
Nicholas Weaver
And going negative is probably going to get some severe blowback, simply because the “negatives” (“Obama is all rhetoric and wishful thinking”), although true, are already acknowledged by everybody.
So what good can it really do the Clinton campaign to go into frothing-crazy-mode, apart from drive (up to a few days ago) fence sitters like me away in disgust?
They’d have better luck focusing on the scandal that Obama fathered a BLACK BABY for all the good it would do them.
The Other Steve
Last night on CNN, the “analysts” were talking about this. She seems to have a choice of going more negative, or of taking the high road. One of the ladies suggested she’d be far better off taking the high road, as her going negative seems to only have hurt her.
It does not appear that Hillary is able to learn from mistakes.
Chinn Romney
I think Hillary should borrow Bill’s Saxamaphone and go on Letterman. This worked wonders for the Master when he bottomed out after boring the crap out of everyone at the ’88 Dem Convention.
ScottS
Negative won’t work for Clinton. It won’t work for the GOP. It is a throw the bums out election. Clinton knew that and that’s why she and her followers are pissed because showing competence and not being a Republican should be sufficient this year and now Obama is in the driver’s seat. McCain makes that a bit more complicated but still.
Hillary shouldn’t take the risk that her desperation will hurt the party. At the same time, I think there is a meaningful chance that this will only further innoculate Obama from hysterical attack politics in the fall. Big noise will get associated with being a poor loser. Obama can test out how to best respond. And the press can start up their “new teflon” motif.
She’s still an evil *&$^head for acting like Obama is an unworthy usurper when really he outsmarted her, ran a better campaign, and has plenty of thoughtful policy proposals. Watching her go down might actually be fun.
Billy K
So she really wants to reinforce the “Shrillery” meme?
Wow.
L Boom
Someone at DKos did a great satire post about that a while ago. “Barack Obama fathered not one, but TWO black babies!”, was actually pretty clever how they handled it. Maybe the Clinton campaign could just borrow it? After all, they’re not bound by the same standards because they’re, uh, running on facts and not on empty rhetoric. Yep. Really.
As far as the negative ads go, I think Hillary is especially vulnerable to blowback, much more so than almost any other politician in today’s landscape. She’s got tremendously high negatives already and they only confirm the worst suspicions of someone who’s on the fence about her, whereas with a less well-known politician they don’t have all that baggage to confirm.
At this point, I’m really starting to wonder if Clinton really is trying to torpedo Obama’s chances so she can run against McCain in 2012. It seems less and less paranoid every day of this campaign.
Ugh
John – see also.
Zifnab
Anything that doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger.
I say, bring it on. Lets draw a line in the sand and see where the real Democrats stand. If Clinton wants to chip away at the party, she’ll be starting with the ground under her own two feet.
gypsy howell
The Clinton supporter sites like No Quarter and Taylor Marsh have already turned into rightwing attack machines. They’re linking drudge & Capn Ed, approvingly quoting Sean Hannity, and spewing out any kind of negative crap they can dig up on Obama – it’s like they’ve completely lost their minds.
Do they realize that come November, they’re going to have to decide if they’re still even democrats?
Of course, some of them like Larry are democrats-come-lately so maybe the whole party affiliation thing was just a brief fling to get over their break-up with George Bush.
Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic
Hopefully the wiser heads in the Democratic Party will prevail, and they’ll soon be counseling Hillary out of the race for the good of the party, and just threatening to marginalize her if she doesn’t go willingly. But this is the Democrats we’re talking about, so I would never misunderestimate their ability to lose an unlosable election.
jnfr
I’m not worried.
ThymeZone
I guess Wisconsin taught them nothing. A 17 point asskicking, even with plagiarism and America-hating and Rezko.
They are completely tone deaf. Every attack on Obama now wins him votes and her fewer votes. They are fighting a tidal wave of popular enthusiasm that is still growing.
The only question now is how far they will go with this futile campaign. How deep into the pit of negative politics and Machiavellian strategies they will dig themselves.
This is less of a contest now, and more of a Shakesperian tragedy unfolding for the Clintons. Or maybe a David Lynch movie, not sure.
BFR
Okay, but how many Democratic donors are going to hand over large amounts of their hard-earned cash to help what appears to be a dying campaign?
Jake
Ah, hyperbole. So let me see how this works. It took:
1. Decades of Republican bullshit gutter scraping antics; 2. A resignation to avoid impeachment;
3. Arms dealing hijinks;
4. A woman in a persistent vegitative state
5. A bullshit invasion that’s wrecked the Army.
6. Shitting all over the Constitution.
7. All incompetence all the time.
8. Snoozing through a record-breaking natural disaster,
to cripple, not destroy alas, but cripple the Republican party. But one election cycle with one candidate (or a 527 group for that candidate) being nasty is going to ZOMG! DESTROY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
Yawn.
Here’s what will happen: The Clinton candidacy will take swipes at Obama. People will clutch their pearls and swoon a bit because from another Democrat the attacks will seem nasty. Then, when Obama wins the nomination and McCane and the Republican Masters of Nast go to work and we’ll remember what negative really looks like.
John S.
Hopefully not Blue Velvet, then…
I can just see Wolfson or Penn doing nitrous oxide and glaring at Hillary, “Don’t look at me…don’t you fucking look at me!”
GuyFromOhio
Lads and lassies, we’ve a winner. You want “Party Destruction”? Look to the right – a candidate the gasbags openly derided yet will soon be fellating, and nowhere to go but down. The splinters will be stabbing eachother, trying to figure out if a 3rd-party saviour can be concocted in time.
Meanwhile, plenty of Democrats are happy to vote Democratic, even if the trad media ijits want to see a fistfight before the real gun battle starts. And it *will* be a gun battle – the neofascists ain’t going quietly.
Love the Blue Velvet ref, may be time to rent that again …
PeterJ
There’s always republican donors.
Jon H
Hillary’s like the opposite of teflon. She’s a swiffer candidate.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I’m going to have to agree with Jake on this one. It is some serious hyperbole to talk about destroying the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is dying of worms, flesh eating bacteria, brain cancer, and palsy. Clinton will have to try hard to top that.
However, I do remain concerned that Hillary is damaging an already pathologically weak party.
Jake
I will not make a joke about John McCain.
I will not make a joke about John McCain.
I will not make a joke about John McCain.
I will not make a joke about John McCain.
I will not make a joke about John McCain.
KC45s
I’d second (or third) some of the above. Let Clinton do what Clinton does. It doesn’t matter. Nothing her allies can come up with will be half as vile (or half as effective) as the conservative attack factory. Really, the next six months is simply a giant open audition, an American Idol, to see who gets to replace Ann Coulter for the length of the Obama Administration. Many positions are open in the right-wing Wurlitzer, thousands want the jobs, and the race to the bottom to claim these rare and lucrative prizes will be savage. Compared to that, HRC is just a warm-up. Nice of her to give Obama a sparring partner to prepare, though.
A Different JC
What “destroying the party” could mean: By attacking Obama in a way that harms his candidacy for the general election, the Democrats will lose in ’08. What looked like a realignment in ’06 will collapse. The hundreds of thousands of disaffected voters – independents and ex-republicans – who were looking for a new party to join will see that the Democrats aren’t for them either.
So, first of all, it is a (possible) destruction that comes from loss of potential.
But there’s another ‘destruction’ to consider. Was the Democratic party destroyed after 1968? Yes. The party of Truman-JFK-LBJ, of muscular foreign policy + liberal social programs became the party of latte-sipping liberals.
From 1932-1968 Democrats were in power for 28 years. From 1968-2008 Republicans were in power for 28 years.
This is the year the Democrats can wipe clean the stink of ’68 and become the nation’s majority party again. If we mess this up, it could be another 28 year wilderness…
And that’s what I think can credibly be called “destroying the party”
Jake
And if you multiply 3 by 2 and subtract 2 from 8 you get two sixes. 1968 contains a six, 666, the number of the beast! And the Democratic party of 1932 is identical to the Democratic party of 2002. OMG, I need another latte!
LarryB
I agree with others that no matter how “nasty” the Clinton campaign gets, it will pale to nothing in comparison to the general. If Obama can’t hack a few love pats from team Clinton, he doesn’t deserve the nomination, period. IMO, the party will be stronger for it, not weaker. The meme that “we’re doing the Republican’s work for them” is bulls**t. They’ll do it anyway.
A Different JC
Jake, I don’t know who you are. You may be a college professor, state Senator, or even my brother-in-law. But mocking my analysis, just makes you sound silly. What about the 28 year comparison thing is confusing you?
I’ll elucidate one point, because it seems I was unclear: I should explain to you that in 1932 the Republicans had just succeeded in ending 12 years of rule by destroying the country with horrific indifference. W happens to be worse than Hoover, but that should work for our purposes of explaining that America of 1932 and 2008 look a lot alike.
Jake
[sigh] That’s the point ‘Nother Jesus Christ. By making a mildly silly response to your silly post I avoid the supreme silliness of making a serious response.
demimondian
Ah, nother JC…welcome to BJuice. If you want to be mocked for idiocy, you’ve come to the right place.
Jake, your math is wrong.
J sub D
I, for one, am grateful that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act has halted the pernicious effects of big money on our political campaigns. It sure is great that fat cats can’t pour like $100,000 into a campaign now. The $2,300 limit is working!
Jake
I’m not going to take that from someone named Demonmondian. My math is fine (for once), my phrasing of mathematical equations suxors.