Anecdotally bad for Clinton
From the decidedly anti-Clinton Swampland, a Democratic dinner in NH was overrun by boisterous Obama supporters who wildly cheered their candidate and twice booed Clinton. (Politico version)
Here's the new Clinton line of attack, "an untested man who offers false hope or a woman who's electable."
Just 3 days out from NH voting, she needs to get her legs back, and fast. The debate tonight will be huge.
(Also: Notable in relation to last night's post on the generational difference among staff and consultants, both the NYTimes and WaPo carry insider criticisms of Clinton senior strategist (and "microtrend expert") Mark Penn.)
Here's the new Clinton line of attack, "an untested man who offers false hope or a woman who's electable."
Just 3 days out from NH voting, she needs to get her legs back, and fast. The debate tonight will be huge.
(Also: Notable in relation to last night's post on the generational difference among staff and consultants, both the NYTimes and WaPo carry insider criticisms of Clinton senior strategist (and "microtrend expert") Mark Penn.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:51 AM
4 Comments:
Remember a few months ago when pundits marveled at Clinton's 'flawless' campaign?
Her attack now seems to be that she's been thoroughly scrutinized over years, and her opponents haven't. I can't believe that's going to work.
If the enthusiasm for change continues, the only way she can win is to talk about what she has accomplished over the years, and frankly, that's not much.
By
Anonymous, at 9:45 AM
Inevitability.
You figure alot of the media has long and close ties with the Clinton campaign folks, so they likely believed Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe's interpretations a little more than they should have.
It is true that she's been more "vetted," but that also means the impressions of her are fairly calcified.
And, even if she had accomplished alot, that's not the momentum of this thing. She's trying to fight emotion with facts, and that's pretty hard, especially with a very short window.
By
mikevotes, at 10:20 AM
I'm confused as to why Clinton thinks she's more electable than Obama? I'm not accusing her of being like Rove, but this sounds a little Rove's knowing the real math, back before the 2006 congressional thrubbing.
Another point. Clinton has repeatedly dropped in the gender difference. It's factual and all, but I think it's a little passive-aggressive. It reminds me of how other people feel the need to refer to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama.
I'm not really anti-Hillary, but sometimes the more she opens her mouth the more disappointed I am. I find her more snarky than witty. She's no Molly Ivins.
By
-epm, at 10:55 AM
That's a good point.
I read a really interesting analysis somewhere that Clinton is hampered by her perception.
Short version: She views the campaign as facts, as positions, as qualifications, and is unable to sstep outside that to "feel" the voters and the mood.
She views it as a court case, and in her mind, she has the facts on her side.
She can't see the Obama movement.
I don't know if that makes sense, but I think it's germane.
By
mikevotes, at 11:36 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home