I don't even need to get into the "coolness" of attacking other democrats by name.. The strategy itself is interesting.

The talking head pundits all said going negative in the democratic primary would be a bad idea.  Some going so far to say there would be a backlash against the candidate that did that.

I'm all for contrasting and distinction on positions but calling Obama unable to survive attacks or describing opponents campaigns as stalling seems more editorializing than position issues.

Is Hillary going for the quick Kill on Obama ?  Is Hillary's strategy to get back the inevitability campaign?

My thought is she wants to seem invincible and may be trying to keep donors from giving to Obama.  I also think she knows Obama can not be on a ticket with her.  Hoping Bill will bring the black vote for her in the general.

On an aside if you force yourself to listen to Rush or Hannity they LOVE going off on Hillary.. Hillary is the reverse GOP nominee.  Nothing excites them like she does.

This makes me very angry.  It's consistent with HRC's horrible judgment.

...I think ignoring electability is ignoring reality. Read stories about the Iowa Caucus and notice how quickly the word pops up. It's a big factor -- often THE factor -- in many people's decision-making process.

I disagree that criticizing Obama's lack of campaign experience is out of bounds. The fact that he's never run a competative general election campaign is a serious issue that Democrats should take into account.

Saying "I'm more electable because I take positions the base disagrees with" is obviously triangulating and self-defeating. But I don't think worrying about Obama's ability to take a punch falls into this category.

here's a thought worth considering though.  all of our people are electable in this environment.  the thing of it is, with hillary, her campaign people are going for a tally of 50% +1, because that's about all they could squeeze out.  in this environment that's selling the democratic message way short. an obama or edwards has the potential to win by wide margins, whereas hillary definitely does not.  this is to say, there's a lot more promise with other candidates, which could lead, in turn, to more effective governing.  this analysis rests on a lot of if's, but there is one thing that presumably people would agree on: hillary won't win by a strong majority.  if we really want to crush the GOP, we'll need a mandate in the next presidential, otherwise the blood they smell will be the same as that they sensed after the plurality victories of 92 and 96.

We can't win an electability war against the DLC-nexus.

Happened in Montana with a redefining to suggest contrast was key.

Can Edwards or Obama take an attack?  More importantly can they deliver one?

The one this this is clear about Hillary Clinton is that she will not be "swiftboated."  In fact, I think one could expect that she will go on the offensive harder and stronger than Democrat in recent memory.

People need to think about who is the best candidate to take on the Republican machine, and not just who has the best smile or the best stump speech.

I think that Clinton, Edwards, or Obama could all get be elected.  I don't think any of them have  electability issues.  I really don't.

I do think some would put together and run a better general campaign than others.

Hillary comes across as a bit of a bull in a china shop.

Guess what, Chris and Matt? There's a primary going on, and the candidates are going to attack each other, often in such ways that mesh with the GOP storyline, and it's hardly a tragedy. On the contrary, it's good. It's politics. What's more, it's perfectly legit to say your candidate is a better general election candidate than the others. If this bothers you, it's gonna be a long dark year for you.

I like this blog--it drips with passion and it's got some of the best commentary around--but there's a strain of puritanism that makes it look silly and less savvy that I believe it to be.

 Here in Maryland last fall, Comptroller (and former Governor) William Donald Scheafer had basically alienated most state Democrats with his nonstop kissing up to Bob Ehrlich (among other things, like endorsing Bush over Kerry in 2004). He was confronted with primary challenge by a REAL Democrat, Peter Franchot, and Franchot was well on his way to winning the primary in early polling.

 Then Janet Owens came in to muddly the waters. A nominal Dem and Ehrlich enabler, she injected herself into the comptroller race as the "electable" alternative to Franchot, and she actually hooked in some otherwise-knowledgeable Dems here in Frederick County. I actually heard, from the mouths of established county party leaders, that they liked Franchot and wanted to vote for him but thought Owens was more "electable", and that getting rid of Scheafer was more important. Luckily Franchot won anyway, a fact I gleefully threw in the faces of these wise party elders.

  "Electability" is the phoniest, most contrived construct in party history. Have we noticed how Republicans never use that word to describe their own, even when they've got nutballs like Brownback and Romney in their midst?

  A voting strategy designed on how other people might vote is a losers' voting strategy. Vote with your heart! It will show when you're enthusiastically pitching John Edwards to your undecided neighbor in September 2008, rather than telling your neighbor through a painted smile that really, Hillary's not so bad.

I think Hillary is just determined to win and she has tough strategists as well as a mind of her own; and she's going to be hard on her competitors.  We are already seeing that. She is defining herself immediately as incredibly tough; as in "don't mess with me".  What choice does she have? She's a 134 pound woman, albeit one who has been through hell and back, who has to prove to the nation that she can handle national security, brutal dictators, a vicious Republican attack machine -- and also be sensitive enough to take care of children, improve schools and education, care for veterans and the elderly, and the list goes on.

If I were her, I would just travel the world with Bill and have a blast for the rest of my life, doing good work through his organization.

She wants it.  And I have a feeling she will pull it off and be a good President; at least as good a President as Bill was, if not better.

It does seem strange to see her ads on mydd and kos.  LOL

 These HRC attacks on grassroots-popular Democratic candidates underscore how much the ruling class has invested itself in a Hillary Clinton nomination (not necessarily her presidency). That Murdoch party for her was no accident.

 Talk Hillary out of the mix, and the Democratic field is one of the most populist in decades -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson, maybe Gore or Clark. Even Tom Vilsack has distanced himself from DLC dogma. If Hillary were not in the race, the Democratic nominee will very likely be someone who actually makes the concerns of working-class Americans a governing priority.

 The ruling class is acutely aware of this, and that's where Hillary comes in. She's a fallback position for the ruling class in case the Republican (whom they'd prefer anyway) doesn't win in 2008. Unlike Edwards or Gore or Clark or Obama, she can be trusted to not rock the boat too much, keep the wars humming nicely, not make too many waves about health care and antipoverty stuff.

 My one hope is that the netroots infrastructure has developed enough to have a serious shot at stopping her.

shouldn't be a primary rational for a campaign, and if it is, that candidate won't go very far. You've got impress the base with passion and/or ideas.

The nice thing is that the better Dems do, and the worse the GOP does, the less notions of electability will come into play. That is, if Bush stays in the low thirties and the GOP nomination is tilting in the direction of, say Newt Gingrich, the less we'll all be talking about who could win, cause all of our candidates could.

We must start discussing: how can we stop Hillary from winning the nomination?

One option would be a netroots primary between Edwards, Obama and some other candidate. Then we line up behind the winner to beat Hillary. I am afraid we cannot split the anti-Hillary vote.

  ...that's all part of the game.

  It's designed to make Hillary appear more liberal than she really is. "Geez, Rush hates her, she can't be THAT bad."

  Hillary's the ruling class's fallback for 2008.

I don't think so.  Hillary is not the best candidate to carry our message forward; don't let them take over the grassroots.  These folks didn't give Gore their wholehearted support in 2000 and worked against the outsider Dean in 2004.  They tried to prevent Jon Tester in Montana and Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire from being nominated.  Any so called Democratic organization that tries to subvert the will of the grassroots to select their candidate deserves censor.  If you have a senator or representative that belongs to the DLC, I would urge you to advise them to drop their DLC membership like a bad habit.

The sad part is... they're only mean to other Democrats and forget how to play "mean" when going against the Republicans.

"We must start discussing: how can we stop Hillary from winning the nomination?"

Should do this in a clubhouse somewhere. Unless you think Hillary's team aren't reading your comments within five minutes of your posting them.

Really.

It is sad to see the Clinton camp to play the electability card so early in the process,...

Surprised? Not even a little. This says a couple of things:

1. They are scared and feel behind.

2. It's all they got.

Electability is a bullshit strawman argument that is basically their only card they can play. Kerry was electable too, remember. That's all we heard early on: Dean isn't electable. Kerry is.

Well even though I find "electability" to be a complete line of crap, I'm more than happy for the Clintonistas to raise it. In my opinion electability works against Hillary in spades. She's Bill Clinton's wife! [Gnashing of teeth] She's.. A WOMAN! [Fear and panic]. The Right HATES her witha burning passion of a thousand suns!!! [the sky will fall and the earth end]. By God, SHE MUST BE UNELECTABLE!!!! Runaway, runaway!!

So go ahead and raise elecatbility in this primary. The charge will come home to roost.

We need to start talking about how McCain, Brownback, Romney are not electable. As master Jack said Republicans never use that word.

One thing the netroots values is partisanship directed at Republicans.  The internal squabbling and swipes at fellow Democrats, OTOH, fails pretty badly.  Negative attacks against Democrats worked quite well (or were portrayed that way) in "appealing" to a broader electorate in Iowabut this is way too early and not shielded at all.

If I were in Hillary's shoes, I'd come out swinging at Republicans, not at Obama.  I think she's got nothing to prove about toughness.

Obama wants to be Hillary's VP.  Don't you guys understand what is going on?  My last comment here.  

It's all about voting blocks.

Bill Clinton is extremely popular in the Black community and Hillary needs those votes, which she could get from her last name.  Obama cuts, big time, into that block.

So you direct a 'dog whistle' attack aimed at funders to cut him off from money.

Hilary says she is the "best positioned" to help the country.  What is that position.  Seems like she is going for the full back position.  All this macho Iron Lady stuff is gonna backfire.  Position?  No, you have to have a vision.  No vision.  Once more we have the "it's all about me" campaign.  Resume over vision.

I'm having a WONDERFUL time defending and talking up Hillary to every Wingtard I meet in my family, at work, wherever. The ones I know are going crazy with fear right now. Defending and selling Hillary to wingnuts is fun.

That said, I honestly will vote for anyone but her in the primary. Just between us, I have to admit, that I'll have a real hard time voting for her in the general election too. I'll probably vote socialist or something. With a Dem congress, I think it might be time to send the DLC'rs a message. Triangulating against progressive ideas has a price.

It is sad to see the Clinton camp to play the electability card so early in the process, even if it isn't entirely surprisingly that it was DLC-nexus uber-pollster Mark Penn who did it.

I agree about the whole issue of electability.  They need to quit gazing in their crystal balls and start remembering this is about governing and not just winning.  As far as Clinton's campaign using it already, that's no surprise.  This is the width, depth, and breadth of the Clintons.  This is why I will not support Hillary.  She will run right and compromise the Democratic baby out with the bath water ala NAFTA, media consolidation, welfare reform for babies but not corporations, and the list goes on.  Please, no more corporate whores regardless of party, and I don't care who "predicts" their wins.