The Obama Clinton No Holds Barred Democratic Nomination Campaign

I doubt they'll outdo their self-destruction in 2000, though they've set a precedent for misconduct in trying to steal what the lost afterwards. No wonder that even so many _Democratic_ voters don't trust a brokered or any other unscripted form of convention.

First off, I gotta say, I don't believe Bill Clinton is the guy orchestrating the negativity behind Hillary's campaign. The campaign is and has been a reflection of her, not her husband. Remember his campaign in '92? It was very positive, his themes being hope and change.

In most stories about the behind the scenes goings on in the Clintons' political lives (Primary Colors, etc.), it was invariably Hillary who was the cold-blooded, "screw 'em" with a vengeance, member of that team.

Second, the implication that Hillary is making a "comeback" now would imply she is still in the race. She is not. She lost back in March. She can still try to steal it, but it's nah-gonna-happen. There's no way in hell superdelegates are going to play that role in the destruction of the Democratic Party. That's why Sen. Clinton's lead in superdelegates has gone from 106 in December to 23 today (approx - I'm not absolutely positive of the number, but that's close if not spot on). She can not catch up in popular votes. She can't catch up in delegates.

Third, Sen. Clinton is not being rewarded by going negative - she is destroying herself, her husband, her party, and her party's nominee.

This whole line of ever shifting "conventional wisdom" is nothing but a lot of self-serving claptrap by the entertainment media (we no longer really have a news media, lets face it) that lives in its own echo chamber, and creates its own narratives. And let's not forget, the networks sell airtime by drawing viewers, newspapers sell ads by drawing readers - a continued "horserace" draws both.

Negative campaigning is a tool whose effectiveness depends on the slinger, the slingee, the brand of mud, and the situation. There is no evidence that it has worked particularly well for Senator Clinton in this spring's primary battle. If it had, she'd have won Pennsylvania--her perfect state, which voted immediately after both Obama's series of media-saturated "cultural" brouhahas and a clearly superior debate performance--by more than 9 points (my elitist upbringing taught me to round down from 9.2).

Mike is right, however. Even if she succeeds, she fails.

I hope the Demmies slit each other's throats in Denver. Better than a Shakespeare festival in Ashland!