April 16, 2008
Hillary Jumped to Go Negative Too Soon (Dick Morris)
Hillary's momentum in Pennsylvania may have stalled, according to the most recent polling. If so, why? She jumped all over the Obama "bitter" comment the moment he said it. That meant that she probably didn't poll it. With Penn sidelined, perhaps the campaign is not as poll-dependent as it once was. In any case, it appears not to have been that big a deal in a Democratic primary. After all, putting down gun owners and those who take strong stands against immigration, as well as religious people, is not all that bad among liberals.
But here's the key point: Hillary only has enough media running in Pennsylvania to run one ad at a time. In putting on her negative ad, she had to shut down her positive advertising. Obama has enough media purchased to run three ads at once. So he can answer Hillary's attack and still keep a steady diet of effective positive ads on the air. With Obama on the air with positive ads and Hillary on the air only with negatives, Obama has a clear edge.
Consider also that Hillary's voters are downscale and older. That means that they decide later in the process for whom to vote. Obama's positive media is hitting them just as they are making up their minds. And that may be producing a swing to Obama.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 19 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Well, for the moment she is clinging to hope, but she may become bitter any time.
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
If this is the best you could come up with perhaps you should quit the Hill and take Lanny Davis with you. somewhere in the center of what you and Mr Davis say about Hillary Clinton is probably the truth. wait, I was speaking of MRS Clinton there is no truth.
Comment by james d granata — April 16, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Mr. Morris,
I'm a professor at a western Pennsylvania university, and I live in a small PA. town. I've viewed the Obama 'Bitter' video and read the words numerous times and I, for the life of me, can't fully understand the reaction other than the SPIN the opposition initiated and maintains. It seems to me the issue is one of semantics more-so than substance because I can find no logical reason to differentiate between being bitter and being angry according to the English Thesaurus. I'm sure there are folks who after giving the issue some thought, and paying $3.45 a gallon for gas at the local Sheetz this morning, will admit to being bitter and angry. I certainly was.
I also agree with what you said on Fox a couple days ago about the folks who resent being referred to as 'Bitter' probably weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Anyone who understands his and his wife's background can not possibly believe either one is elitist.
I love it when you fight the good fight on Fox with Sean.
Comment by FCorbett — April 16, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Soon, soon the Auchi story will catch up with Obama:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/896844,CST-NWS-SNEED16.article
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Professor Corbett, you researched the wrong word. The word in question is "cling" not "bitter".
When someone "clings" to guns and religion this seems to imply that they are using these as a crutch to help them through their bitterness. Since many people like their guns and religion without regard to the level of bitterness they experience, this comment put their long cherished values in question. It was also a reflection on Obama's attitude towards guns and religion.
Next time the mainstream media tries to spin another Obama comment to make it seem innocuous by emphasizing the wrong part of it in their coverage, please be a little more skeptical.
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
No Hillary did not, and Obama LIES in his speeches.
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright_pastor/2008/04/13/87617.html
Comment by WE KNOW — April 16, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Professor, this article may help you understand what the fuss is all about:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080415/NATION01/495515534
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Morris, you are so biased. Did the Clinton's make you mad because they decided you aren't as smart as you think you are?
Comment by PetefromMW — April 16, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Bitter? Angry? Is it the Pennsylvania rural voters? No, it's Michelle Obama:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/04/16/will-msm-ignore-michelle-obamas-anger
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Obama gets the coveted Hamas endorsement! Hurray!
During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.
“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/a-hamas-problem-for-obama/
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
'When someone “clings” to guns and religion this seems to imply that they are using these as a crutch to help them through their bitterness. Since many people like their guns and religion without regard to the level of bitterness they experience, this comment put their long cherished values in question.'
Igor:
Sometimes we need a break in the crisis cycle we laughingly call life. When this need occurs we often turn to the activities that we enjoy even when we are not in crisis. At times, support or a crutch as you put it, is valuable, necessary and even therapeutic. If it works why not remain emotionally or intellectually attached to the object or activity?
Who are others to question what I cherish or value; it is really none of anyone else’s business?
james
Comment by james d granata — April 17, 2008 @ 7:02 am
Anyone who subcribes to Single Spook Animism has a lot of nerve trying to parse the significance of words like "clinging." Most Single Spook Animists go far beyond simply hanging on — through dull and disinterested inertia — to their stupid superstitions. Instead, many of these Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus cultists positively embrace their fabulous fictions as the very oxygen they breathe in through their unevolved mental gills.
I have no problem with Senator Obama using perfectly good English words like "bitter" and "clinging" because George Orwell used them, too, in his classic study of economically squeezed, proto-fascist English workers in "The Road to Wigan Pier" (1937). Anyone familiar with classic divide-and-rule Republican Party fascism will find Senator Obama's remarks not only entirely eppropriate but a little disappointing in their overly generous tenderness towards America's self-flattering, infantile educational and political pretentiousness.
The economically suicidal section of the American electorate who voted twice for Sheriff Dick and Deputy Dubya can "pray" all they want to their Single Big Spook in the Sky for deliverance from Republican Party depredations on them and their descendants. It won't do any good. As Deputy Dubya likes to cynically say of his rabic reactionary religious "base": "You can fool some of the people all of the time — and those are the ones you have to concentrate on."
Or, as Sheriff Dick Cheny likes to promise the disintegrating American military while sneering into his own armpit: "Hell is on the way." Most rational and secular Americans know that it has already arrived. They know who to blame for it — Brand Republican. And that doesn't mean some alleged, postulated, putative, ostensible, invisible, ephemeral, ineffable, non-corporeal Single Big Spook in the Sky. It means anyone on a ballot with an "R" next to their name.
Comment by Michael Murry — April 17, 2008 @ 9:02 am
I heard this and initially doubted it was true….but the Clinton campaigns inability to outright deny it is making me believe its true…
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15234.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clinton-on-work.html
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/04/16/what-did-hillary-say.aspx
Hillary went negative on Obama even after she expressed an even WORSE sentiment!
Comment by Hugo — April 17, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Obama could have recited the 10 commandments and someone would have found something wrong with it. The inevitable candidate with all of her racist coded words just didn't think a black man had a chance so she invoked race at the very beginning. Where she slipped up at is she forgot that we were not living in the 50's and 60's and this country has other ethnic groups in it. That's why she is shocked. She was depending on the 'good ole boys' mentality. The country changed right around her and she didn't even realize that.
Comment by Yvonne — April 17, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Yvonne;
Well Said!
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 17, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Yvonne, you're using the same tactic that Obama does when he calls any question he doesn't like a "distraction". There was a funny article I read recently documented this technique, and he used it again last night. You're also implying that any question put to him is just pure racism. I don't see that in this case and if you can establish this connection, please do.
Comment by Igor R. — April 17, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
James, my intent was to describe Obama's statement as comparing guns and religion to a crutch, not to criticize, or for that matter to endorse them, as such. People obviously should be free to use whatever beliefs they have as a crutch or otherwise. However, when one describes widely held beliefs or attitudes as such in the context in which it occurred, it seems like a put-down.
Comment by Igor R. — April 17, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Dear Igor:
You were very clear with your initial posting as you tend to be even when you are ridiculing your opponents with outrageous statements. I, and I am speaking for me, just don't care what other people think enough to be put down by them. I think people suffer unnecessarily when other folks, and often one's that don't know what they're talking about matter.
It reminds me of the time I was a social worker in a large hospital and concentrated more on making working people eligible for benefits and was called the social worker of the middle class (and a republican,yet). It's the middle class who need direction when they are thrown into what we call the delivery of service system, not the poor. It is simple to work with the poor in a means tested system but it's challenging to make the system work for everybody. My supervisor said I was the best social worker she had every worked with but I had a terrible attitude when it came to the poor. Crazy me, I wanted them to take responsibility for their situations and we can't have that. I said I didn't respect her enough to care what she thought and that mostly is my attitude.
And no I wasn't fired from that position, she was, the medical direction said he understood this was a municipality but he wasn't going to choose incompetence over ability.
james
Comment by james d granata — April 17, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
James, that was an inspiring story since usually power and ignorance win over the lack of power and competence.
As I don't know from personal experience how to suffer from any inconsequential words, I have to vicariously learn it from others. My only rational for making any statements, outrageous or otherwise, is to propagate my point of view that I believe to be more beneficial for the survival of this country than some of the others.
Comment by Igor R. — April 17, 2008 @ 4:40 pm