Clinton: Muted, urgent appeal, backing off Obama

Probably a wise course. While Edwards and Obama may have gotten away with it for quite some time, she has little margin of error when it comes to drawing to "contrasts" between her and the others. The media will simply jump all over her -- unfairly I might add.

She should return to her message and stay positive, drawing contrasts only in response to negative attacks on her. I hope that Obama and Edwards will run positive campaigns from here on out as well, but I doubt it.

Hillary/Bill is really showing signs of desperation. Now, seeing that Obama's support is growing in Souff calina, she dispatches Big Bill down there to campaign in Charleston the day before the Barack/Oprah big show. They decided to do this spur of the moment on Friday and did'nt even have a venue until Friday night. It seems he's going to do some freelancing at a hospital, the marketplace which is always jampacked with tourists on Saturday anyway so he is guaranteed bodies at least, and at a church. All this seems to be an attempt to upstage the Obama rally, but will more than likely backfire in it's desperation. The headline will be "Throngs gather at Charleston's Meeting Street Market to greet Bill Clinton." Is this slick or what?

So, the intense negative campaign by Hillary Clinton backfired. Her negative attacks against Senator Obama were deflected and defeated - not by a fierce reply from the Senator, but by the continuation of a positive, inspiring and visionary campaign.

Senator Obama is leading in Iowa and will shortly take the lead in New Hampshire, not as a result of slick campaign ads or Clintonesque negativity, but as a direct result of his ideas and his integrity.

Senator Barack Obama is a refreshing change in America. And if the American people decide in favor of a culture of political change that returns us to a government "of, by and for the People," then the Senator will surely win his party's nomination and the White House.

Hillary is falling. She propped herself up with inflated spending on a Senate campaign against a pathetic opponent to make herself look formidable, and then used her infamous celebrity status to hog attention and get a national lead in polls.

Her house of cards is collapsing, and she cannot effectively put herself forth in an attractive manner.

The democrats got over-confident in 2006, believing that ANY democrat will win in 2008. This led to thinking they had the luxury of nominating a woman or a black, and that America was going to elect a democrat anyway, and that there was room to spare.

WE are finding that Hillary does not necessarily beat the Republicans, and Obama has not been under fire. Racism will be exploited, and we have no way to know how effective it will be.

This leaves Edwards as the best, and safest bet, and a fine selection. It is time that people start thinking, and not carried away with the huge number of women and blacks in the democratic party that may nominate someone who cannot win next year.

Bigdawg, Hillary's mistake was going personally negative on Obama. Contrary to what Clinton would have us all believe, Obama has NOT been nasty or attacked Clinton. (by the way, Clinton is the one who called Obama "Naive and irresponsible" in July and the press let her get away with it.)

If you look back on actual quotes from Obama, Obama was never as nasty as Clinton was last week.

Over the last few months, Clinton has only been criticized for policy and for not giving straight answers.

Obama rarely mentions (or mentioned) Clinton's name on the trail.

THAT is why the media reacted to Clinton's nastiness.

Obama has been criticized by the press for being too NICE, so for Cllinton to go after someone who has lead such a positive campaign warranted some backlash against Clinton. (People who have paid attention know that Obama haas run a positive campaign and Clinton has twisted his words in the past to make him look bad.)

Hillary going negative is the greatest thing to happen to the Obama Campaign and they have really made the most of it as people have been able to see the real Hillary Clinton.

Wasn't John Kerry a white male democrat? Wasn't Al Gore a white male democrat?

The days of the race of the candidate making them the "safe" choice for Democrats is over.
Time to vote for who you believe in and let the chips fall where they may.

Seems to me like not voting for who you want because someone else might not vote for them is just silly.

But Oscar, I believe your strategy is flawed. Having been born and raised in North Carolina I can assure you that Edwards wouldn't have even been re-elected for Senate in his home state. The problem for Edwards is that what comes out of his mouth does not match how he lives his life. The national perception is that he is an opportunistic, disengenuous "has-been". While in the Senate, he did nothing to even acknowledge "poverty." Now, second time around, he chooses to run a national populist campaign on "poverty", but little things like living in a 20 million dollar house and getting 400 dollar hair-cuts - railing agains coorporations while taking 800k from a hedge fund foreclosing on Katrina victims, simply won't fly. How on EARTH can you consider this guy to be the most able candidate in the general.

Obama, draws from Dems, R's and Independents. If the D's want to win, go for Obama. Hillary is just too polarizing and the perception of Edwards is that of a "phony"/

Hillary Clinton speaks of "looking for common ground" with foreign leaders. I think the larger, more fundamental issue is, how effective would she be at finding common ground right here in the USA?

Hillary regularly touts her ability to take it to the Republicans, and she recently referred to her campaign's last-minute barrage of attacks at Obama as "the fun part." I don't know whether or not she actually thinks that making these sorts of accusations against an opponent is "fun." But I'm confident that this statement provides a view of her political mindset. It's all about the fight. It's a hyper-partisan, defensive stance.

At this point in history we have difficult issues that will require a large degree of cooperation across the partisan aisle. Cooperation requires trust. Trust requires embracing diversity of opinion, respectfully listening to each other, and honestly representing where you stand.

Hillary Clinton's modus operandi is at its core mistrustful, defensive, and uncooperative. This is not what we need from our next president.

Senator Obama's leadership style is quite different. It's all about embracing the conversation, inclusiveness, honesty, trust. It's about working with each other---not against each other. And he understands that lifting up our fellow man makes the world a safer and a more sane place to be.

Senator Obama is the leader we need now!

Now that we've got "Three Gals in a Diner" since Hillary's mom and daughter showed up today, isn't Clinton out of relatives?

I call your three Clintons and raise you one Oprah.

As a 20 something college graduate and as a woman I will be proud to vote for Obama and I urge others to do the same. I will not vote for Clinton under any circumstance. I am ready for a change and I am sick of lies. I think we all have had to deal with enough lies with the current administration and I am ready to vote for someone I respect.

Oscar, let me get it clear. You believe Obama is the best candidate? But you won't vote him because 'racism will be exploited' and he will lose. Don't you think that makes you look even more racist. I think, as I know you do that Obama is the best...And Americans are voting for him regardless of color. Please join the league of progressives and let's move this country forward.

". The media will simply jump all over her -- unfairly I might add."

It's all part of the game. If she gets the most overall attention and has proclaimed herself to be the inevitable candidate, the media has every right to go after her.

Julie, I do believe Hillary should have stayed on the high road and only responded to attacks rather going after Obama for his hypocrisy on point after point. But it was not a personal attack on Hillary's part to point out that Obama used his PAC (with money from lobbyists) to influence early primary and caucus states while sanctimoniously claiming he won't use lobbyist and PAC money in his presidential fund.

Furthermore, Hillary's kindergarten gaffe resulted from a direct personal affront from Obama who claimed that unlike "some people who've been" angling for the White House for decades -- i.e., Hillary -- he was nothing short of drafted to run by "will of the people". As flawed as the attack may be, clearly he has.

Look, maybe you think Obama isn't up to dirty politics in Iowa and elsewhere, and that's fine. But you will not convince me, given some the operatives with whom I'm familiar who are working on his campaign. He's just much more clever at it, having come out of the Chicago Machine tradition.

The notion that he has never been as nasty as Hillary was last week is not credible at all. After all, it was his campaign that has reportedly prevailed upon media outlets to investigate and report on Bill Clinton's sex life since leaving the White House. Moreover, his campaign early on accused the Clinton White House of selling the Lincoln bedroom. And the Obama folk were the ones who derisively and cynically attempted to plant an anti-Indian-American story in the press because of Indian-American support of Hillary, referring her as (D-Punjab) -- on a "not-for-attribution basis" no less.

All of that occurred before Hillary suggested that the notion that a direct meeting of the president with leaders of hostile nations without any preconditions (i.e. diplomatic negotiations aforehand) is naive and irresponsible. He, and I suspect you, will try to twist, spin and otherwise pretend that he said something other than what he said. In fact now he says exactly what Hillary said in that debate: that she would certainly pursue diplomacy with hostile nations but the prestige of a presidential meeting must be premised on getting a positive outcome. His original response WAS naive and irresponsible.

Hillary's team stumbled a bit last week, I agree. But she will recover. However, please don't believe for an instant that everyone sees the halo you seem to see over Obama's head.

Obama won't win the general election, Hillary is surrounded by experts in foreign policy. In this time of deep trouble we do not need to elect another likeable idealist--last 8 years will tell you about the likeability factor. I'm voting for someone who knows the system inside and out and gave us a good America with surplus money. Bill and Hill 'o8

You guys need to give her a break. I'm a Republican and I'm actually considering voting for her.

All the venom is unnecessary. She is a politician. She follows her advisor's advice.

Obama follows his advisor's advice... and please don't tell me he hasn't made mistakes.

I'm sorry, Dexter. I actually just now caught your comment.

Please cite for us where, as you say, Hillary has "proclaimed herself to be the inevitable candidate (I'm assuming you meant 'Democratic nominee)". I don't think you can.

You are absolutely correct in one respect though. The media has every right to go after Hillary. However, it should do so in fair and balanced fashion, and it should go after her opponents with equal fervor -- uniformly across parties.

It hasn't.

Please don't make me vote Republican if Obama prevails....

A Republican:

Obama hasn't made mistakes.

Some people might vote for Obama because they see a halo over his head, but I'm voting for him because he can fight hard and beat the Republicans in 2008. I mean, he's got Hillary's machine panicking.

And really, let's get one thing straight - criticizing your opponent, pointing out their shortcomings, trashing their policies, even twisting the truth a touch, is not dirty politics. It's simply politics. Obama plays it tough - he's from Chicago after all. But he's not dirty. Nothing his campaign has done comes close to the sort of things Rove and Bush did to beat McCain in 2000.

OBAMA IS NOT THE ANSWER!
It is proven over and over in his short time as a senator that Obama doesn't have the nerve to take on tough issues. He continues to avoid voting on abortion and Iran! Seeking a trillion-dollar tax hike and raising the retirement age for Social Security!!!! Is not in favor of a health care plan to cover all children rich or poor. DON’T WASTE YOUR VOTE! Take a look at his public tenure in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers can vote "present! Instead of yes or no on a bill. Obama, votes “present" on SEVEN ABORTION MEASURES!!!! Unbelievable! (If you can believe that), The President can't vote 'present.' Nor pick and choose which challenges he will face. This guy is afraid to make ANY decisions. Americans will not sell out this great country for a TV talk show host!!! DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE ON OBAMA he cannot win in the general election. I vote for him is a vote for the Republican Party
********************
It was wonderful to see all three generation with Mrs. Clinton, that’s the kind of support we woman need in this mans world, which is currently a mess! Shame on Oprah! Who put woman back 50years… Madame President of the United States…it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.
"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal healthcare and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.
"Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, 'In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.' More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us…and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."
SHAME ON YOU OPRAH!
VOTE FOR CLINTON

Linda, you've got your facts wrong on Hillary and who she is surrounded by. In fact, Mr. Obama has a fine and experienced team of foreign relations experts surrounding him, many from the Camp, as was on display recently in NH. Your fears are misplaced and misinformed. And what's up with the "idealism", have you read the pragmatism in his positions, in particular health care?

@Regina King: "Why shame on Oprah?" Oh I forgot, because she's a woman she has to vote for a woman or else she is a traitor who "put women back 50 years".
So I guess since I'm a woman and black i'm supposed to feel torn? No. I think the best thing that Hillary's campaign has done for women is that it made us see that a woman could be president. I would say the same for barack, and the possibility of a black presidency--except that his candidacy would mean much more. It would mean a change in politics that we so desperately need right now. I think the real disservice to the feminist movement is those women who say that we ought to elect someone as president because she's a woman. I too, will look forward to voting for a woman but when that day comes I will be voting on the best candidate for the job who just so happens to be a woman.