Clinton to swift-boat Obama in Texas?

The article you link to (0.00 / 0)

says that the group will focus on "white women under 50 in the Ohio area -- specifically Cleveland, Columbus, Youngstown, Charleston (WV), Wheeling- Steubenville, Zanesville, and Parkersburg (WV)."

It only says that if excess funds are available than Texas may be included.

It also says that the group's efforts will "contrast Obama and Clinton on issues of importance to middle class voters, such as the economy, health care, and the mortgage crisis."

Do you think its responsible to say that they are swift-boating Obama in Texas?

The focus of the 527 is apparently Ohio. They also are focusing on issues.

Where do you get your information that it will be swift-boat style campaign? I cannot find any link for that.  

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM CST

Because its a negative-messaging 527 (0.00 / 0)

David, it's because the intent of the 527 is to buy negative television advertising about Clinton's opponent. This doesn't necessarily mean they will lie and deceive to the degree the swift-boaters did with their attacks on Kerry. It doesn't mean they won't be unfairly negative, either. They could be.

I am hoping that those close to the Clinton campaign will think hard before launching -- or having a 527 committee launch -- negative paid attacks on Obama. If the 527 will not pay for attacks on Obama here, we will all gain.

It is looking very much like he is going to be the nominee. Driving his negatives up in Texas, especially when Clinton really can't begin to close the delegate cap here, will have one effect:  it will hurt all of our down ballot candidates in November.

One of the very unfair reasons Senator Clinton has had a hard time of it is the volume of negative attacks aimed at her from the Right. I'm under no illusions that the Republicans won't in the fall be nasty, but there is a cumulative effect to these things. The less we contribute to that -- the fewer attacks on Obama, especially in paid advertising -- the better we will all be here in November.

I would not ask this if Clinton really stood to gain here. Politics is hardball. We take our lumps. We give them out.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:31:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I mainly thought (0.00 / 0)

that the way you presented the article you linked was somewhat misleading.

IF this group advertises in Texas (which, if you read the article, seems to be a big "if") they will not be doing swift boat style attacks. Do you agree?

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:11:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

It's a measured line, but a real one. I think, should they run, they'll be negative -- there's no question about that. But "swift-boat" may be crossing the line.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:13:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

but there's a difference between pointing out that Senator Obama's health care plan is not universal and lying about John Kerry's war record.

Right?

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:17:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

About the difference, not about the universal part. :)

[Massachusetts has mandated universal health care, but there are still 6-10% of citizens who aren't covered. And they're fined and punished -- which was real hard, for example, on my girlfriend, who needed to file taxes up here but the paperwork for her new health insurance hadn't gone through, so she had to spend hours on the phone talking Mass. out of making her pay a fine.]

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:28:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

It is an important story to write about a possible pro-clinton 527 forming but to question whether it is a swift boat attack I think is just plain misleading.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:58:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was away for awhile... (0.00 / 0)

But I owe you a reply. I simply use the swift boat term a little more broadly. And, I'd be really surprised if they went to the trouble of setting up a 527 and then did mild comparative ads on health care plans. If that is what they do, I have no complaint.

Maybe I'll call it slow-boating.

I respect Senator Clinton and her supporters, and will try not to cross any line. I hope the campaign feels the same way.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 15:10:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"a little broadly" (0.00 / 0)

may be an understatement, too.

I know you've run campaigns where youve contrasted candidates' stances on issues. That is what campaigns are for.

If this 527 does run ads in Texas (which, as the article states, is a big if) and they are attacking Barack Obama personally and telling lies than I'll concede.

But until then I think the broad use of a word like "swift boat" that, for Democrats like us, brings up a pretty nasty and disgusting past.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:40:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

last paragraph should say (0.00 / 0)

But until then I think the use of a word like "swift boat" that, for Democrats like us, brings up a pretty nasty and disgusting past, should be very carefully chosen.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:41:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are right (0.00 / 0)

For some reason the site wasn't letting me post this for awhile...

You know what David, you are right.

It has become a short-hand way of referring to these groups, and it is being referred to this way around the blogosphere today. I'll be careful about its use. But the Clinton campaign should know that it's running the risk of this label if this gets out of hand.

In any case, I take your point. And I wish all the exchanges among supporters of these two candidates were as thoughtful as yours.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:55:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

We are lucky to have two great candidates that will both make great presidents.

I understand your point.

But what you caution the Clinton campaign about not letting "get out of hand" not only is not related to the Clinton campaign, but has not even started yet.

While I have enjoyed our back and forth, this entire post is much ado about nothing. Let's have a debate about the issues and not go fishing for negative Clinton stories.

Let's leave to Republicans ... they've been doing it for years.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:59:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

...The group's ad is up in Ohio. If we can discourage whomever from running it in Texas, it won't be about nothing...at least to me. Call it a doctrine of pre-emption.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 17:58:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

now that you've seen it (0.00 / 0)

do you still think it shouldn't run in texas?

---

by: David Mauro @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:46:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is a bit off-topic... (0.00 / 0)

But David's comment reminded me of one of my more frequent thoughts lately: can anybody think of a better situation for Democrats than to have two supremely articulate Democrats arguing for months over whose universal health care plan is more universal than the other's? That, in the context of years of Republican rule in which they did not one thing about it? Hell, in that light, lets let 'em argue until for a while longer, we need every American to take note of that Democratic priority. That's the kind of family fight that we can live with.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:23:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I would like to add (0.00 / 0)

that according to John Edwards during one of the Presidential debates, Clinton is the only one of the three candidates who has accepted money from 527's.  

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:45:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

shout-out! (0.00 / 0)

I was born in Zanesville.  That is all.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 17:09:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow... (0.00 / 0)

I was born in Zanesville too... Two transplanted Zanesvillians on BOR, what's the chances of that?  For extra points, where are you now?  San Antonio here.

---

by: SigmundDali @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 00:34:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Austin (0.00 / 0)

we moved here in '84, moved to Atlanta in '87 for a 12 year hiatus, then I came back here after graduating from college in '99.  My Dad still lives in the Y-City, but I always make him come here for family visits. :)  He being a musician, it's not a hard sell.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:15:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hah (0.00 / 0)

I was born there in '86, moved to Abilene, TX in 93, Austin in 2005, and San Antonio 2006.  All my extended family still lives in Zanesville, but I haven't been back in nearly 7 years.  Fun stuff. Hopefully, they'll do us proud come November. =)

---

by: SigmundDali @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Will Just Backfire (0.00 / 0)

If Clinton surrogates run negative ads on Obama, I suspect it will just backfire like they did in Wisconsin.  Clinton's reputation will suffer; not Obama in the general.

---

by: Sicembears @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:38:17 PM CST

Negative ads (0.00 / 0)

do work, unfortunately.  Clinton did pull a few votes away from Obama in Wisconsin.  The people who were undecided up to the last minute were no doubt impacted by the negative ads.

Fortunately in Obama's case because of his charisma and large base of support, much of it will likely just roll off of him.  He has also cut into some of HRC's turf with regard to male voters, blue collar voters and women over 60. His campaign strategy and messages are working. I believe a figure like Obama who is giving people hope is going to be hard to vilify. Those doing the vilifying might find themselves vilified.

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:55:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Swift-boating" (3.00 / 1)

So should all negative campaigning by 527s be considered "swiftboating" or just the ones used against candidates you like?

---

by: Jobu @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:53:23 PM CST

<i>I had no idea how bizarre it is</i> (3.00 / 1)

Seriously? It's not a hard concept and that's no way to court the Texas vote, we like our uniqueness.

We vote and then we caucus. It's not like either of these things is new. Iowa had a caucus, California had a primary, we have both. We're a big state, big enough to have two ways to select our delegates.

We have grown men crying over it.

Maybe, you should get new men to help your campaign. If they cry about a primacaucus then they may need a new line of work, like birthday clown. That's a generally happy occupation.

BTW, Philip, the formatting is for you and KT, the primacaucus is for you.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:58:22 PM CST

dang formatting (0.00 / 0)

---

by: matthew_lt @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:58:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

:) (0.00 / 0)

Thanks!

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:13:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Look at Clinton's strategy.  She really CAN'T win a majority of pledged delegates at this point.  So, to win, she needs to swing the super-delegates.  To do that, she needs:
1) To keep the pledged delegate count relatively close, and
2) Claim SOME kind of mandate.

If she can win the popular vote in Texas and Ohio, even if it doesn't shift the delegate totals much, she can at least claim to have broken Obama's momentum.  Further, she can claim she has the support of the people, it's just the funky rules that are holding her down.  This would provide some cover for superdelegates to vote for her.

It's a weak reed to support a campaign, but what else does she have?  She's not going take a majority of pledged delegates at this point.

---

by: Bill M @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:00:26 PM CST

Superdelegates are the wild card (0.00 / 0)

It's a mistake to put too much into the exact delegate counts. If either candidate runs the table from here on out, or comes close, then the superdelegates will flock to that candidate. Obama gained as many delegates between Feb 12 and Feb 19 as on Feb 12. That process can run in reverse, and it gives Clinton a chance to win.

Just not a very big chance.  She needs to win the debates, use that to win the popular vote in Texas (and not just by 1-2%) and win Ohio by double digits. Then she needs to trounce Obama in Pennsylvania by 20+% and keep Obama from having any significant wins before June.

My guess is that almost none of that will happen. She'll probably overreach in the debates and sound shrill, she'll win Ohio by a small margin and lose Texas, and it will be over on March 5. Even if Clinton's Texas/Ohio firewalls hold up, Obama has Mississippi to counter Texas and North Carolina to counter Pennsylvania.

But until events prove me right, Clinton has every reason to keep fighting.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:40:08 PM CST

Harsh words (0.00 / 0)

Bill Clinton was just quoted on MSNBC as saying (I'm coming as close as I can remember).

She has to win Texas. If she doesn't then I don't think she'll win the nomination.

So much for optimism in the HRC campaign.
And then following that short story MSNBC showed footage of the UDems at Votarama. National news, good job guys!

---

by: matthew_lt @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:55:26 PM CST

He said that at the Austin HQ opening too (0.00 / 0)

Just wasn't picked up in the press. James Carville said the same thing last week, something to the effect that if they lose either OH or TX it's over.

---

by: ghs10years @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 23:33:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it is true to a large degree (0.00 / 0)

she needs to win here.

i don't think it has so much to do with optimism as realism.

i think they are continuing the thematic that barack obama is basing his campaign on what we hope will be the condition rather than being real about what the condition will probably be.

---

by: colin @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 00:26:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]