All You Nasty Boys Don't Mean a Thing To Me

There may be more at play here in the Clinton camp than mere lust for a fight: I believe they have come to the conclusion that the only way to stop Obama is to stop him in Iowa even at the cost of driving up Hillary's negatives: If both lose Iowa as likely through Clinton's self-destructive smear campaign, the calculation is that Hillary will still prevail everywhere else - Edwards would not have the resources to fight on and Obama would have hit a roadblock. This is the cruel and coolheaded calculation Hillary's campaign is making. Only time will tell if she was right.

Took me a while but I finally recognized the janet jackson reference in the blog post title. Nice.

Most Democrats see the present administration as untruthful and underhanded---yet, until now, most have supported a candidate--Hillary--who is all that nastiness and more. Most Democrats abhor negative politics--but the few Hillary apologists that are still left seem to say that it's okay for her to go negative. It's not. She does best when she plants questioners, or threatens debate moderators, so that she gets easy questions in public. She does best when she can claim to be the victim--just defending herself from all those nasty boys, you know. She does best when she is nice in public, but cynical, unethical, mean, and pragmatic in private. She is still an awesome force, due to her connection to the 90's, her name, and her huge team of cronies who are very, very good at old-style gutter-level politics. She will lose, as I have said here for months now, if if she reveals who she is, and what she really believes, in public. I think Hillary is NOT beginning to show herself in public, here. I think she is trying to paint Obama as a guy who can't respond to attacks--which many Democrats think cost Dukakis and Kerry the White House. Obama needs to respond with strength and dignity--but he needs to respond. Not responding is the REAL trap here.

This is really fun stuff! The Clintons are masters when it comes to the politics of personal destruction. Yet they are also masters at claiming they are the victims of the politics of personal destruction. Anyone who is the target of their attacks is usually in a lose-lose situation. If you ignore the attacks, then the rhetoric of their attacks becomes the truth and results in your downfall. BUT if you counter attack, then the Clintons immediately become the victims. Then you are perceived as the bully which results in your downfall. The question now becomes have the Clintons done this so often that the Democratic voters are now immune to it and will turn against them? Or will the Clintons pull this off and survive another day to try it all over again in the general election?

The essential lesson is this: a candidate--even by proxy--can't throw mud at other candidates without getting some on himself or herself. All Sen. Obama needs to do is to stay above the mudslinging by not responding in kind to the senator from New York and watch as Sen. Clinton becomes the architect of her own misfortune.

Kindgergate:
The Hillary campaign is using the fact that Obama wanted to run for president since he was a child against him. And they are citing a essay he wrote at five.

If you're thinking what I am thinking your thinking her campaign is either insane or desperate.

I admire Barack Obama for not striking back at Hillary in such a way as to do himself political damage. Hillary is the master of the underhanded trick, the sleezy innuendos, the backstabbing slander, the cheating,misrepresentations, and downright lies about her opponents. Good for Obama not to join her in this game of trading insult for insult.
Hillary's tactics remind me of a little girl in gradeschool who has lost out in a game and now wants to hurt the winner as much as possible.
It's only going to be all the worse for Her. Obama's just going to sail away in the polls, leaving Hillary far behind.

1. Quoting Janet Jackson's 1986 breakaway hit in the title suggests that you're of a particular age group, and of a particular solipsism attributable to that age group wherein you believe everyone else also gets that reference. I bet even Klein's never heard that tune unless he's got an older sibling.

2. Alternately, you could be referencing Larry Craig's "nasty boy" comment about Senator Clinton's husband on MTP back in the day - which would be equally insider, but somehow more acceptable in the game of political journalism.

3. At least right now, Obama appears to be unassailable - unlike Gephardt and Dean in '04. And the fact that Obama is not engaging should strengthen that. Is this a real belief of yours, or is it just a case of referencing past elections to get pundit points?

4. Your larger assertion that Clinton cannot afford to go negative is a great one, and absolutely a key to the contest. "The fun stuff" indeed.

It's not only "silly season", as Obama's said, but also petty season. And that's all people will see Clinton as after acting like a Kindergarten Cop: silly, and petty.

Clinton's attempt to drag Obama into the snake pit of negativism is intentional. Her strategists have already concluded (based on "second choice" polling data in Iowa) that she can't win Iowa. So what to do? If Obama wins Iowa, he has the millions of dollars to go the distance through Super Tuesday and beyond.

The game here, for Clinton, is to provoke Obama to get nasty, too, causing Edwards to appear above the fray and delivering Iowa to Edwards. She can then polish off Edwards later on. But Obama, if he wins Iowa, will end the Clinton dynasty on the way to the nomination.

It's a desperate maneuver, but it must be seen for what it is: a cheap trick. Good on Obama for not taking the bait.