This is why I think it's important for other candidates - and their supporters - to stress the positives of their chosen candidates as opposed to the negatives of Clinton. I don't think it will be negative attacks that draw away the soft Clinton supporters, but positive statements that will draw the softies, along with solidifying their own support.
Obama could campaign as the "ONLY Democrat who opposed this war from the beginning", thus drawing attention to Clinton's warmongering without actually mentioning it. Edwards could say he's the "ONLY Democrat serious about ending the war", once again, implying that Clinton isn't (which is true).
Or one or both of them could say that they're the Democrats who "put America first", bringing Clinton's AIPAC ties into bold relief.
Edwards can cast himself as "the ONLY Democrat who stands up for working families".
There are many ways to draw out Clinton's many negatives without outright attacking her. And the latter can be done by progressive organizations unaffiliated with any particular campaign, such as MoveOn.
Or Al Gore could jump in... (I know, I know...)
Disagree. I've met a few soft Hillary supporters who changed their minds after I pointed out to them her Murdoch ties, her anything-but-progressive funding sources, her (skillfully disguised) love for the Iraq war, and her corporatism.
They weren't aware of ANY of that. And these were anything but low-info voters...
a very liberal CNN pundit
No such thing exists.
have big doubts about the baggage she brings to the race. I don't think it would take much for them to change their minds.
Fortunately for Hillary, the GOP is doing its best to tear down Obama and Edwards and holding its fire on Clinton. They are praying that she is the nominee they get to run against.
"Fortunately for Hillary, the GOP is doing its best to tear down Obama and Edwards and holding its fire on Clinton. They are praying that she is the nominee they get to run against."
Oh, please. This is why I simply can't take your posts seriously and I assume that your "inside" info on Iowa is tainted with the same nonsense. I am actually inclined to believe the opposite of what you write about what is going on "at the ground level" in Iowa because of posts like this one. I am sorry to be blunt, but this sentiment is complete garbage.
George. I find DesmoinesDem's diaries on Iowa and comments very thougtful.
Perhaps you should try to disagree without being disagreeable.
Well, I don't think that the statement that was made here lends itself to honest disagreement.
That is the type of statement that basically shows such tremendous bias that it makes any objective analysis fom the Iowa "ground level" impossible to come by (at least for me.) Perhaps we are all a bit biased, but some more than others. I consider the above sentence paranoid in the sense that the claim of a widespread Republican conspiracy to "get" Obama and Edwards to further Hillary Clinton's fortunes is made. The idea being that with the help of her Republican "friends" she then beats both Edwards and Obama who then make her their easy prey in the general election.
It makes no sense, is a complete copout, a strawman. If Clinton wins the nomination it will no doubt be used to "explain" her win over the "better" candidates.
I merely told desmoinesdem that seeing that type of comment makes it impossible for me to believe that any report from Iowa from her pen is in any way unbiased or valuable in the sense of giving a true reading on what really is going on there.
A shame, because it would really be great to have someone in the state who could give us a rundown on what is really happening there.
I expect folks here to disagree with me, I am definitely still in the minority.
Compared to the normal background noise, there are more attacks on Obama and Edwards than on Clinton. Whether this is statistically significant and whether it's a definite plan or just coincidental is unclear, but Republicans don't really need to smear Clinton just yet. They've already saturated the market for that for more than a decade, now they just need to pick the slurs that work.
I was at a small dinner party Sunday night with five hard core liberals who follow the election but are not political geeks.
Nobody wants Hillary. Either they don't think that she can win or they don't want to go thru the Clinton's dirty underwear one more time. The two other woman were most anti-Hillary.
They called Edwards the pretty boy.
And the attitude on Obama (I swear I kept my mouth shut and just listened) was pretty much wait and see.
Based on this anecdote and the polls I think for Obama to win he will need to be seen as a more viable candidate then he is now. Iowa and NH could do it for him, but we already knew that. Bottom line there are a lot of people who would support Obama or Edwards if they felt that they were backing a winner.
They are praying that she is the nominee they get to run against.
If they had any sense they'd pray that Dodd or Biden would be the nominee.
Those might just possible lose however slight that chance is. Hillary will easily beat everybody the GOP can field.
Remember those who pray for a Hillary candidacy are the reason why the GOP is in the state that it is.
If they get their wish they just might succeed in digging an ever bigger hole for themselves. They'll overreact and completely lose it. Nobody is going to listen to somebody who's foaming at the mouth.
Who are you talking to?
Everyone I know does not love, trust or have faith in Hillary. What makes it worse, these are independent voters Hillary needs to win and they can't stand her.
