The Clinton argument about "vetting" is misleading, (IMO)

[Armstead]

This stuff that the Clinton campaign has been using about how she's the most electable because she's been thoroughly "vetted" and she has nothing to hide misses the point, IMO.

It's not about whether Obama used drugs when he was young, or whether Biden plagerized a college term paper, or whether Edwards is rich and vain or any of that other distracting nonsense. People who hold that stuff against a Democratic candidate are not going to vote for a Democrat no matter what.

Unless a candidate has been found to have a long-running relationship with a sheep, or has been selling crack to Congressional pages, a voter is going to give the benefit of the doubt to whichever candidate best reflects their own views of what they believe in.

Take the Swift Boat thing, for example. It wasn't that reasonable voters leaning to Kerry were suddenly convinced that a war hero was actually a coward. The reason that caught on was 1)Because it reinforced the bad image held by militaristic right-wing voters who already didn't like Kerry or Democrats and 2)Kerry's weak response reinforced the image among more moderate voters that he is not really human or passionate or forceful.

For Obama, the idea of his youthful drug-use may lose some voters. Some puritanical voters who think taking aspirin is a sin will hold it against Obama. Some right wingers will not vote for Obama simply because he is a Democrat. Some bigots will say "See? That just proves that those nigras aren't fit to hold office."

But since Obama himself already mentioned it on his own and doesn't shrink from admitting it, the vast majority of voters who might be inclined to give him a chance will look at the whole picture. If the GOp smear machine tried to make it an issue, those voters will say "Yawn.We know that."

The bottom line is that GOP smears are going to be as effective or ineffective against Hillary as any other democratic candidate. The fact that the GOP memes are already known just allows them to trot them out again without as much "seeding of the ground" because they are already known. People who don't like her, will buy it. People who like her will give her the benefit of the doubt....Same as any otehr Democratic candidate.

[Enrique]

1. your analysis is based on some dubious assumptions

you say that scandalous information isn't going to change anyone's vote, that anyone who would be influenced by that wouldn't vote for a dem anyway. Where did you get this idea? I find this highly unlikely.

Similarly, you say that only militaristic right-wing voters were influenced by the Swift boaters. Again, where did you get this? I seriously doubt this claim.

Regarding the impact of political mudslinging, I think Hillary has a firmer grasp on the realities than you do.

[joeybee12]

2. True...the swift-boaters found a way of getting on the evening news

by their attacks, and that's the point, to distract from real issues...if the drug use or somethign else comes up, and Obama can't deflect it, the right will keep bringing it up and up until that's all you ever hear about.

[Armstead]

6. Same with the mud slung against Clinton

Mud is mud. It will detract whether it's being flung against Hillary or Obama or any other Democratic candidate.

[Armstead]

5. Truly scandalous information might about any candidate

No candidate is immune from that however.

You miss my point. The mud will be slung, whether it's Hillary or not. With Hillary it might be more of a reminder than something new. But it's the same mud that will be slung against any democrat, and will have the same effect, whether it's old or new.

As for the Swift Boaters, I reiterate my point. The MSM media is partially to blame for endlessly flogging it. However, it would not have gained traction beyond the hard-core of GOPers and rightwingers (and those who hated Kerry because of his anti-war activities during Vietnam) if Kerry had not allowed it to go unchallenged for so long. Those long weeks when we were all waiting for him to do a full frontal assault on the Swifties took the real toll, in terms of losing voters who were on the fence, because it reinforced the image of him as weak today.

[proudmoddemo]

3. I agree:

It also should be pointed out that the mainstream media feels guilty about the swift boat thing in retrospect. The guilt started at Katrina when they were forced to see horrifying images of the consequences of giving the Bush people a free pass. So, this time with the Clinton smearing, they've been on it, calling it out for the dirty trick it is, and moving on. It's far less effective now than it was in 2004. Also, people have wised up a bit, which is a good thing too. Less people are likely to believe this crap. Though already existing bias about the Clintons may make Hillary the most vulnerable to this...

[Armstead]

9. I hope you're right, regardless of the candidate

[Strelnikov_]

4. Agreed

The lack of a response to the 'swift boat' issue was what was damaging.

[OHdem10]

7. The advantage HRC has is this: The GOP has been after

her so much, the average citizen tunes them out. "My Gosh, can't
the Gop get over it--their obsession with Clinton is riduculous."
In other words, they will give HRC more slack. Not the Knee Jerk
Cultural Conservatives and RR. They will not vote for her anyway.
Hilary is already known.

The GOP has lost Independants because they cannot be trusted.

The GOP can be more effective in smearing lesser nationally knowm
candidates.



C

[Armstead]

8. It's a two-sided coin

You may be right. But you may be wrong.

It's equally possible that rather than just tune out the old GOP mud about Clinton, it may also remind many moderate voters of the downside of the Bill Clinton years.

If the opponent is, for example, Mitt Romney, and the image is of a fresh face "reasonable" Republican versus a holdover from the days of partisan political gridlock and battle, then moderates could go for the "fresh" Romney as the candidate of perceived change.

Either way it's a gamble.

[AlGore-08.com]

10. You're wrong about one thing - - negative campaigning will turn off potential voters

If it didn't, pols wouldn't use it so frequently. If it's done "correctly", negative campaigning reduces the number of people who will vote for your opponent. If it's done really "well", it reduces the number of people who will vote for your opponent down to the really rabid, hard core party activists and/or supporters of your opponent. It doesn't matter if the folks who are affected by the negative campaigning decide to vote for you or decide not to vote at all. The negative campaigning has reduced your opponent's support to a number too small to allow your opponent to win.

[saracat]

11. Hillary also has the disadvantage of having voters predisposed to dislike her with the highest

negatives of any presidential candidate. And no one can ever be thoroughly "vetted" as they always make up "new" stuff and make it stick.

[creeksneakers2]

12. There are no magic silver bullets

I agree with you that negative attacks don't influence core constituencies.

There is a misconception on DU of how the negative attacks work. There are pervasive fantasies around that the opponent (whoever that might be) will be exposed for and found guilty of something so terrible that it will destroy him in one bludgeon. Partisans devour news accounts of investigations that might end careers or stray Internet accounts of previously unknown accusations. Life isn't really like that. The big magic silver bullet almost never comes.

Candidates are destroyed by negative attacks that highlight an alleged personal flaw. Those attacks are repeated endlessly. John Kerry was called a flip flopper who wouldn't provide adequate defense. Al Gore was a serial exaggerator who said he invented the Internet. Etc, etc, etc.

Hillary has been subjected to attacks that she is scheming, manipulative, cold and crazed by lust for power for 15 years. She's survived that.

If Obama or Edwards or anybody else is the nominee, there will be a fresh attempt by the GOP to define that candidate with a few character flaws that would render the candidate unable to appropriately carry out the duties of office.

If its Edwards I'm sure they'll call him a phony. I don't know about Obama but I think they'll call him a inexperienced naive dreamer who can't protect us, especially from illegal immigrants.

[rucky]

13. The sheep thing might actually be a plus in some states. n/t

[Armstead]

15. "Montana -- Where men are Men...and sheep are afraid"

Sorry Montanans. That was a running joke among my Montana-native friends when I was young and living out west.

[jenmito]

14. Hillary has not been vetted. Heck-we still haven't seen her yet-to-be-released documents that

SHOW us all her "experience" during her husband's admin.