either, but I do think that an over the top diary/post here or elsewhere in the blogosphere could influence a media cycle negatively. Hillary doesn't have time for a negative media cyle right now.
That's why I think we should concentrate on positive news items rather than going negative on any of HRC's opponents. I fear Ben Smith who does scope places like this for news. His stuff gets picked up by the mainstream media. Again, they are looking for ANYTHING that will support the negative media narrative about Hillary.
I don't believe you are. If you haven't figured it out already b/c you skimmed the diary or quite frankly didn't bother to read it, this diary wasn't addressed to you. I don't care what you and your friends do. I do care about how Hillary supporters come across on the web and therefore, this diary was addressed mainly to them.
Dunlap, Ia. � With just 18 days to go until the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton�s campaign is stressing that �every pocket of Iowa� is crucial in helping secure her nomination.
Clinton won�t go door-to-door in Iowa like she did in New Hampshire Saturday, at least not on this week�s Iowa blitz, her staff said today.
Instead, she�s drawing attention by whirring in a chopper staff dubbed the �Hill-A-Copter� on a five-day handshake-a-thon, trying to make an impression on as many of Iowa�s 1,781 precincts as possible.
Interesting that the Boston Globe reporter is going with her in the Hill-acopter today given their endorsement of another candidate yesterday....
I appreciate you considering my point. I know it's really tough, given what other opponents are saying/doing right now. But I think that we really need to be disciplined and focused on our objective of getting Hillary nominated. If that means we bite our tongues and hold back on certain stuff for the next couple of weeks, then so be it. It'll be worth it in the end when this whole nomination process is over and HRC is our 2008 nominee. We can't lose sight of that in all of our bickering with others here at mydd/other places at the blogs....
I'm a big believer in Machiavellian politics and I have said on this board that I'm a fan of negative politics as well as contrast politics. However, we have limited time; limited resources to get our messages out (just 2 diaries/day). At this point in time, the mainstream media is LOOKING for an excuse to call out Hillary and her supporters for negative campaigning after the Shaheen incident. It would support their narrative that Hillary is mean, cold, calculating etc. I don't want us--her online supporters--to contribute to that meme, especially with the likes of Ben Smith of the Politico looking for that type of thing. Hopefully we dodged a bullet with what some troll posted on youtube last night. But we're not going to get too many second chances.
Look, the media holds the Clintons and her supporters to a different standard than the others. We could complain about it all day, but it's reality. We cannot afford to screw it around for Hillary, especially during these times, when the media is looking for ANYTHING to knock her down. They will use anything and I mean anything including comments here to distract the campaign from her goal of projecting a positive message. I don't want to see that happen.
I would HATE to see anything that we did here or elsewhere in the blogosphere in the general that could derail her campaign further. That's why I think we should take the conservative (small "c") approach and just positive diaries from now and until Iowa. We can do regular postings after Iowa in another 3 weeks. But until then, let's stay POSITIVE.
at this point, the best way that we can help Hillary in my view is to talk up "our girl" rather than discuss Obama. He already receives enough (too much) attention now. Why talk about him anymore than he deserves? We only have limited amount of diaries that we can post. Why give it up one to talk about a candidate that you don't even like anyway? I understand and share your frustration with BO on a host of issues.
I would humbly suggest that we forget about BO and concentrate on Hillary in the coming weeks as my recent diary suggests.....
I think that you want Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination right? I'm assuming that that is your intention for writing this diary, correct?
Well, I'm just not sure that this is the way to go about doing it. First of all, like all people, gays have complex views about politics. They all don't think a like. At this point, there are several Obama supporters who happen to be gay that are heavily invested in Obama winning the primary. This stance isn't going to turn them around for one thing. They may disagree with Obama on this issue and value his other stances even more. They may have given him lots of money or devoted a lot of time to his campaign and they're not going to budge b/c of this quote.
At some point, I think it's time that we HRC supporters move on from the Obama bashing to writing diaries that support Hillary. Just my humble opinion, of course....
Yeah, I thought Biden and the 2 Bills all had similiar personality types. For instance, that's why you would see Joe Biden get along with Republicans on things like the Anita Hill hearings and even somewhat the Alito hearings, you know?
I think that Rudy is definitely an active negative person. Ron Paul and McCain are passive-negatives. Romney is an active-positive. I don't know Huckabee as well as the others, but I think that he's a passive-positive. Fred Thompson is definitely a passive something, probably a passive-negative.
I hope she's making a comeback and this is a fresh start to her campaign. She got some good news with the Des Moines Register endorsement and it looks like she's going to do another Ginsburg by appearing on all 6 morning shows tomorrow.
Hopefully Whouley will get the campaign on track. I saw part of her appearance at Council Bluffs today on C-SPAN this afternoon. She seemed confident. It looked like a good event for her. Hopefully, she's well-received in her other events in Iowa today....
this little quick note. I think one of the reasons why HRC and BO don't get along very well is that they are direct opposites on this Barber scale with HRC as active-positive and BO as the passive-negative.
WITHDRAWN: they respond to a sense of duty; they avoid power; they have low self-esteem which is compensated by service to others; they respond rather than initiate; they avoid conflict and uncertainty; they emphasize principles and procedures and have an aversion to politicking.
I think the key points about BO are he responds and he tries to avoid conflict. Think voting present or not at all. I see a lot of inflexibility and rigidness in him. I don't think it should be a surprise that he is seeking advice from former Carter folk b/c they share similiar personalities.
James David Barber analysis is my calling card. I love looking at that analysis. I know it's not perfect, but I think it's a good starting point. If I recall correctly, in the post that you're referring to, I said that I thought that HRC was an active-positive, Obama was a passive-negative. I switch from day to day. I use to think that HRC was an active negative, but as I read more and more about her (both flattering and unflattering depictions) I think that she would be an active-positive.
I also think that a lot of the criticisms that HRC receives here at mydd and the rest of the blogosphere are criticisms that should go to Bill Clinton, a passive-positive president.
Seeks to be loved; easily manipulated; low self-esteem is overcome by ingratiating personality; reacts rather than initiates; superficially optimistic.
to read books about our great Democratic presidents and then read about the not so greats. There are so many good books about FDR, LBJ etc. I started reading the new FDR bio by Jean Edward Smith a few weeks ago and would highly recommend it.
I would also recommend the James McGregor Burns book "Running Alone: presidential leadership--JFK to Bush II--why it has failed and how we can fix it." In that book, Burns makes the point that presidents since JFK have run against their party leading to the weakening of political parties (on both sides of the aisle). I don't think I agree with all of the points in his book. But it was a great read. For instance, I thought his point that the basis for much of JFK's political support came from his father/personal connections rather than ties to the party establishment. But at the same time, going it alone carried with it some costs, b/c he wasn't able to get important legislation through....