[QUOTE=M29;126251]Hillary is a tough gal. Obama needs to show some muscle and punch her in the nose.[/QUOTE]

Which one - Barack or Michelle? Michelle certainly has the better build for it...she looks like she might have a wicked overhand right ... or based on her political leanings, maybe it's the left hook one needs to watch out for. ;)

I've no worries that the Obama camp will be in any way cowed - it's just striking to me how quickly the Clinton campaign got into full-on nasty, negative mode once things were no longer going the way they'd scripted them.

'Twill be interesting to see what happens March 4th - HillBillary can't afford to lose either Ohio or Texas, could be curtains for them if there's a surprise in either of those states. [Or more likely, they'd just use all their political insider clout to try to steal the nomination by way of the superdelegates and a full-on smear campaign.]

[quote=ewmayer;126259]it's just striking to me how quickly the Clinton campaign got into full-on nasty, negative mode once things were no longer going the way they'd scripted them.[/quote]The analysis in a HuffingtonPost article by Dylan Loewe ("Where Hillary Went Wrong: A Pre-Postmortem" at [URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/where-hillary-went-wrong_b_87353.html[/URL]) looks sound to me. I'd been wondering why Hillary hadn't been doing several things that would have been to her advantage; Loewe has pinpointed some of them.

As Loewe writes, "If Hillary does ultimately lose the race, it will be for a combination of reasons - not just because she faced the greatest campaigner in a generation, but because she made a series of strategic and tactical blunders along the way."

He lists seven of those blunders -- errors of both omission and commission:

overreliance on an aura of inevitability,

failure to properly frame the "change vs. experience" argument,

failure to properly frame the "false hopes" argument,

showcasing the old gutter politics (as you noted),

failure to plan for the possibility that February 5 would not clinch it for her (again, overreliance on inevitability),

failure, after her aura of inevitability flopped, to make a thorough shake-up at the top of her campaign,

and, not least,

allowing Bill to damage her campaign.

[quote=M29;126251]Hillary is a tough gal. Obama needs to show some muscle and punch her in the nose.[/quote]No, that hasn't been what he's needed to do, so far at least -- Hillary's falling down all on her own without needing to be punched. Barack has done just fine. I really wish there were as much discussion of Barack's faults as I've seen/heard about Hillary's faults -- that's Hillary's campaign's fault, I think.

BTW, some exit interviews during yesterday's voting here in Wisconsin revealed (as expected) that some Republicans were "crossing over" to vote for Hillary because they considered her to be the less-formidable opponent for McCain. I disagree with that (for more than one reason), but it's easily predictable because it's a natural consequence of conservatives' "strict father" worldview as explained in what's-his-name's book [I]Moral Politics[/I].

[QUOTE=cheesehead;126282]...but it's easily predictable because it's a natural consequence of conservatives' "strict father" worldview as explained in what's-his-name's book [I]Moral Politics[/I].[/QUOTE]Um...are you not aware that the Democrats do the same thing? In some of the early states, where it looked like Barack had it locked up, many of them went for McCain (so he'd beat out Romney) and (partly) due to this, Barack lost.

Republicans are not the only ones to "play the game." When I was in Berkeley, many of my colleagues would cross over to Nevada to vote, even though they were not residents, because it was more of a swing state. etc...

[quote=Zeta-Flux;126293]Republicans are not the only ones to "play the game." When I was in Berkeley, many of my colleagues would cross over to Nevada to vote, even though they were not residents, because it was more of a swing state. etc...[/quote]Voting in the other party's primary -- where legal to do so -- is a perfectly legitimate voting strategy. It is a key component of New Hampshire's primary (see my [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=122945&postcount=76"]post #76 above[/URL]), and many other states as well.

Fraudulently registering to vote in another jurisdiction is.... well.... fraud.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;126293]Um...are you not aware that the Democrats do the same thing?[/quote]I was referring to the crossing-over Republicans' expressed [I]motivation of candidate choice[/I] ("to vote for Hillary because they considered her to be the less-formidable opponent for McCain"), not to the (quite legal) act of crossover voting itself.

(Here in WI, both Democratic and Republican candidates are listed on the same ballot, the voter is never asked to declare or register a party affiliation, and any vote is valid as long as only one candidate is selected for a particular office. Thus, crossover voting is actually undetectable. Voluntary declarations to an exit interviewer cannot be verified.)

Did you consider it so obvious that Hillary would be the less-formidable opponent that you never considered the possibility that [I]that[/I] is what I was disagreeing with, but calling predictable? :-)

[quote]Republicans are not the only ones to "play the game."[/quote]Of course not, and I never thought or said so.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;126321]I was referring to the crossing-over Republicans' expressed [I]motivation of candidate choice[/I] ("to vote for Hillary because they considered her to be the less-formidable opponent for McCain"), not to the (quite legal) act of crossover voting itself.[/QUOTE]And my claim is that Democrats do the same thing, and play the same game. In other, more explicit, words: Some Democrats cross over to vote for who they believe is the weaker match-up, and for other (similarly disagreeable reasons); and some Republicans cross over to vote for the candidate which appeals to them more [that's what happened in Utah, for example, with Obama winning so handily--many people crossed over because they knew Romney had it wrapped up on the Republican side]. Perhaps the reason you didn't hear about it during your elections is because McCain has already wrapped up the Republican nomination, so there is little reason for crossover from the Democrat side. But before Romney dropped out, it was quite common (and for the same reason you find disagreeable).

--------

tallguy,

My beef isn't with crossover voting; but rather cheesehead's implicit claim that Republicans are the majority of ones participating in voting tactics he would find disagreeable. [Oh, and as far as I know, Nevada law ALLOWS people from out of the state to participate in local elections. I wasn't talking about fraud, nor illegality. Although, I guess it was a bad example, because it gave cheesehead the mistaken impression that I think Democrats cross over for different reasons than Republicans. I believe both parties participate in all these tactics.]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;126282] I really wish there were as much discussion of Barack's faults as I've seen/heard about Hillary's faults -- that's Hillary's campaign's fault, I think.[/QUOTE]


I really wish there would be some honest discussion of Obama's record, too. All that I have been hearing in the news is that he is "all style, no substance" - Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews ask his supporters to name his legistlative achievements and they can't. As an Obama supporter, it's really embarrassing to see these "supporters" not be able to name a single legislative achievement of his, but at the same time, I think the media is at fault here, too, for not informing the public about his legislative record. They just continue to repeat the Clinton/McCain Mantra: "No experience/All style/No substance"

BTW, a quick search of Obama's wikipedia page will give you an idea of his legislative record and there are several nonpartisan websites that list the bills he sponsored in the Senate.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;126282]No, that hasn't been what he's needed to do, so far at least -- Hillary's falling down all on her own without needing to be punched. [/QUOTE]Obama needs to convince me that he can stand up to some very strong world leaders.

He can do that by smashing Hillary.

I don't think Berlusconi, Olmert and Castro feel much like sitting around a campfire and smoking dope.

Chirac had great rhetoric, but he'd kick you in the nuts given half a chance.

[QUOTE=masser;126358]I really wish there would be some honest discussion of Obama's record, too. All that I have been hearing in the news is that he is "all style, no substance" - Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews ask his supporters to name his legistlative achievements and they can't. As an Obama supporter, it's really embarrassing to see these "supporters" not be able to name a single legislative achievement of his, but at the same time, I think the media is at fault here, too, for not informing the public about his legislative record. They just continue to repeat the Clinton/McCain Mantra: "No experience/All style/No substance"[/QUOTE]

To be fair, one has a similar issue with Hillary, although she does have the benefit of having been in the Senate a few years longer. Hard to vote on legislation until you're a legislator, no? Today's SJ Mercury News has an op-ed along the lines of "why is Hillary so strong among Hispanic voters, since she's never really done anything of substance for them?":

[url=http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8322371?nclick_check=1]Clinton's pursuit of Latino vote has false ring[/url]: [i]IMMIGRATION POSITIONS CHANGE, DEPENDING ON WHO'S LISTENING[/i]
[quote] Having alienated African-Americans, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton are proving to be equal opportunity offenders by irritating parts of the Latino community through divisiveness, condescension and scapegoating.

Then, to cover their tracks, they trot out prominent Latinos who assure the flock that the Clintons have always fought for them. Recently, Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farm Workers union with Cesar Chavez, has been stumping for Hillary Clinton in the Southwest. Painting Barack Obama as someone who only recently discovered Latinos, Huerta assures crowds that Hillary is "not the Johnny Come Lately" in this election and that the former first lady "has been advocating for us for 35 years" dating back to registering Latino voters in Texas when Clinton was fresh out of Yale Law School.

That's laying it on a bit thick, Dolores. Hillary Clinton has been fighting for Latinos for 35 years? That includes those years in Arkansas, which - in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Clintons lived there - was home to very few Latinos. And it includes the eight years while Hillary's husband was president; Hispanic political activists say they can't recall a single initiative that came from her office that was focused specifically on Latinos. And it includes her tenure in the Senate where - again - Latinos in New York and around the country can't cite a single bill, debate, or committee meeting involving Latinos where Clinton took a leading role.

Maybe some Latinos know the Clintons too well. Maybe they remember Bill Clinton as a president who usually saw race relations in black and white even as the country was going Technicolor. Or maybe they haven't forgiven him for signing a 1996 immigration law that was so anti-foreigner that it barred even legal immigrants from public assistance. Or maybe they're having trouble keeping track of Hillary's positions on the immigration issue; one minute, she's telling a largely Hispanic audience in Nevada that "no woman is illegal" and the next, she's telling a largely non-Hispanic audience in South Carolina that "anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process."[/quote]

But yeah, my one major concern w.r.to Obama is his lack of experience at the national and international-political level. OTOH, that can sometimes be a benefit, in the sense [as with Hillary} that "experience" often translates into "political and special-interest baggage".

[quote=ewmayer;126374]But yeah, my one major concern w.r.to Obama is his lack of experience at the national and international-political level. OTOH, that can sometimes be a benefit, in the sense [as with Hillary} that "experience" often translates into "political and special-interest baggage".[/quote]I too have serious questions about Obama's ability to hold his own on the international stage -- as I recall, Bill Clinton's first couple years were an absolute nightmare as Warren Christopher was a complete fish out of water as Secretary of State.

On the other hand, Reagan was a foreign relations genius IMO, and how much experience did he have?

Bottom line... you never can tell.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;126357]Oh, and as far as I know, Nevada law ALLOWS people from out of the state to participate in local elections. I wasn't talking about fraud, nor illegality.[/quote]Huh? How could this possibly be legal to allow someone who doesn't live in a jurisdiction to vote there?? Even if it were legal, it would be an invitation to someone registering in 20 different towns and getting 20 votes. I find it hard to believe that such a large loophole is wide open in this day and age... Can you provide some backup to your assertion?

All that being said, I understand your original point -- the notion that either party has the moral high ground in regards to the propriety of their tactics is patently absurd.