Update: Kostner in comments notes The Hill article:
Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has taken a markedly harsher tone toward chief rival and Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in recent days, and may be tarnishing his message of hope by doing so, according to analysts.[snip]
Those numbers, combined with a shrinking calendar, have created a “heightened sense of urgency” within the Obama campaign, pushing the senator away from his derisions of cynicism and political games and into a more traditional nomination battle.
Clinton now leads Obama in primary cash with nearly $35 million to Obama’s $32 million. Shortly after that was revealed late Monday night, Obama sent an e-mail to supporters with “Hillary’s Money” as the subject line.
In what amounted to a fundraising plea, Obama said Clinton was able to out-raise his campaign for the first time this year because of help from Washington lobbyists and special interests.
“Hillary Clinton aggressively seeks money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs [political action committees],” the e-mail read. “She’s even said that these lobbyists represent real Americans. She’s wrong.”
That e-mail and a campaign “memo” released last week refer to Clinton as “the most entrenched political machine in Democratic politics” and “the greatest money machine in the history of American politics.” [snip]
But the increase and intensified criticism out of the Illinois senator’s camp does seem to represent a new strategy. As recently as Labor Day weekend, Obama — on the stump in New Hampshire at the time — was refraining from criticizing Clinton by name, indirectly including her in his remarks with his attacks on Washington and “Washington experience.” [snip]
In a speech Monday in Wisconsin, Obama seemed to be spreading the criticism, reportedly denouncing “triangulation and poll-driven politics,” which appears to be a shot at former President Clinton as well.
Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist supporting Clinton’s campaign, said that by including President Clinton in his criticisms, Obama “runs a real risk that you’re going to turn off Democratic voters.”
“She and her husband are very popular with Democratic voters,” Elmendorf said. “You have to be very careful.”
In speeches early in his campaign, Obama refrained from criticizing Clinton altogether, instead saying that his rivals would not be the other candidates or the other party, but cynicism.
“Over the next year of a primary and the next two years leading to the election of the next president, the campaigns … shouldn’t be about making each other look bad, they should be about figuring out how we can all do some good for this precious country of ours,” Obama said at a Democratic National Committee meeting in February.
What’s clear is that with the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching, possibly as soon as Jan. 3, if not sooner, the Obama campaign is upping the ante as it seeks to gain ground on Clinton.
Political analyst Charlie Cook told The Hill on Tuesday that Obama has to start throwing long bombs because there is “no prize for second place.”
“Obama has the ‘hope’ voters, but that’s only about a fifth of the Democratic electorate,” Cook said. “At third–and-long yardage, the quarterback sneak, while safe, isn’t likely to produce much yardage.”
In How To Defeat Hillary Clinton, Part I we examined what Hillary opponents were doing and the likelihood of success. In How To Defeat Hillary Clinton, Part II, we surveyed the advice to Hillary opponents from PINOs, Naderites, Big Blogs, and Big Media.
Today, as we begin the latter part of October, approximately two and one-half months before the Iowa caucuses, we can assess the success/failure results of what Hillary opponents running for the nomination were/are doing and the efficacy what PINOs, Naderites, Big Blogs, and Big Media suggested these candidates do.
We’ll be real brief in our discussion of the tactics and advice we critiqued in Parts I and II of How To Defeat Hillary Clinton: we were right; the opposing candidates (sorry fellas – all 7 of you) and PINOs, Naderites, Big Blogs, and Big Media were wrong.
The effectiveness of the attack Hillary strategies can be scientifically assessed. Let’s assess the results of the attacks. Four recent national polls show Hillary with a show-stopping 50% +. The Washington Post/ABC News poll, the Opinion Dynamics poll, the Gallup poll, and today the CNN poll.
Here’s Gallup from yesterday:
She continues to widen her lead over rival Barack Obama, now 50%-21%, her biggest edge since spring. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is at 13%. What’s more, two-thirds of Clinton’s supporters say they are “certain to support” her.
Fewer than half of the supporters of any other candidate in either party are firmly committed.
For Clinton, reaching the threshold of 50% support may have some value. Only once has a presidential candidate received as much as 50% support in a Gallup Poll and then gone on to lose his party’s nomination. That was Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy in 1980.
“Some of the other campaigns have tried negative strategies that have backfired while she has continued to be out there saying where she wants to take the country,” says Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist.
As Mark Penn says, “New Politics” Obama desperately continues to sling mud and American voters don’t like it. NBC News’ Aswini Anburajan politely refers to Obama mud slinging:
The rhetoric directed towards the Clintons from Obama has increased, Anburajan adds, and the distinctions he’s drawing are not just issue-based.
Here is a video of what is referred to as
mud-slinging not issue-based attacks:
We get it Michelle. We get the innuendo. We see the mud as it splatters.
* * *
Here is the full NBC report which details the other Obama strategy to bring down Hillary:
Obama is now going after the OTHER Clinton, NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan reports. At a rally in Madison, Wisconsin yesterday, Obama said, “We’ve had enough of … triangulation and poll-driven politics. That’s not what we need right now.” The triangulation term was coined during the Clinton Administration, when advisers to the president urged him to split the difference between opposing views in policy proposals.
This isn’t the first time that Obama has referred to the “other” Clinton. Just two weeks ago in New Hampshire, Obama quoted Bill Clinton to prove that too much experience in Washington is a bad thing. “The same old experience is not relevant… And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience,” Obama told the crowd in Concord, adding in his punch line that this was a quote from when Bill Clinton was running for office in 1992.
The rhetoric directed towards the Clintons from Obama has increased, Anburajan adds, and the distinctions he’s drawing are not just issue-based. In Newton, Iowa on Oct. 12, Obama told the crowd, “There are other candidates in this race who are a lot more cautious, they will poll every questions in this race before the say a word.” And the next day at the Sisters on Target Dinner in Des Moines, Obama said, “I’m not going to win just by being the most calculating politician in this race.”
Frankly we are stumped by Obama and his remarks on “calculating” and polling. We see the innuendo intended. But does Obama realize how he wounds himself with such remarks? Has Obama ever googled the words “Obama” and “calculating”? We did. This popped up, Barack Obama portrays the Democratic presidential candidate as a far more calculating politician than his most ardent supporters might imagine. … and this, Perhaps nothing illustrated Obama’s calculating style more than his approach to abortion. And this, I want to like Obama, but the criticisms others level at Hillary, seem to exude from him. He seems opportunistic, calculating, disingenuous. ... And this, Obama could be as calculating as they come. He promoted himself as a defender of abortion rights, but he encouraged fellow Democrats to vote “present” on …
As to polling, Obama in the second quarter was no slouch when it came to polling: Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) outspent chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on polling and research by almost three to one during the last three months, according to the latest financial disclosure reports filed on Sunday.
We are equally stumped by Obama attacking Bill Clinton in order to enjoy himself and appease his rabid supporters on Big Blogs and Big Media calling for such a spousal attack. The Hillary campaign notes how counterproductive the Obama attack is: “Senator Obama spent the last week abandoning the politics of hope and attacking Senator Clinton. Looks like he’s begun this week by attacking her husband. The fact is that most Americans believe that Bill Clinton was a good president who moved the country forward.”
We are equally stumped by Obama’s latest travels:
Despite gloomy warnings about the unreliability of young voters, Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign continues to invest money and time in cultivating the campus crowd. [snip]
That’s not just a talking point for Obama, who has adopted a strategy that seems to thumb its nose at historical lessons a bit. Young voters are significantly less likely than older voters to show up for primaries, caucuses and elections.
Wisconsin? Avoid AARP in Iowa but embrace Madison, Wisconsin students? Do they caucus in Iowa? We’re stumped. We can’t believe Obama just likes the adoration.