More Trash Talk from Terry Mac

[kttmmom]

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/25/State/Bill_still_burns_over.shtml

[wisteria]

1. It amazes me how McAwful has to continually blamed Kerry for his own shortcomings.

He keeps on having to comment on the JK campaign in order to present Hillary's as being more aggressive and focused.
Screw him. I have some very strong feelings as to what I would like to see happen with the Hillary campaign, I won't bring them up again though. I will just take a wait and see attitude.

[rox63]

2. He completely ignores the fact that he was DNC Chair in 2004.

I have only one thing to say about McAwful, and it is :puke:

[ProSense]

4. This is the best part

McAuliffe, who took heat for pumping so much national money behind Bill McBride's lopsided loss to Jeb Bush in 2002, said Kerry wasted months before setting up a coordinated campaign operation in Florida in 2004.

"I came down campaigning several times and knew we were in trouble. There was tremendous disorganization. That's not going to happen with Hillary Clinton."

So he spent a ton of the DNC's money on a loss to Bush, obviously clueless to the need for an infrastructure (or the problem with the 2000 election), then turns around and ignores said infrastructure in 2004. Now McAwful wants to blame Kerry for not doing the DNC chair's job?

Terribly McAwful!

[karynnj]

3. Who knows - his constant contrasting Hillary"s "toughness"

to Kerry's "weakness" could come to be thought of as Hillary's "abrasiveness and nastiness" to Kerry's "decency and unwillingness to get in the mud".

Watching the coverage this morning of the Hillary/Obama spat, there was a consensus that both likely lost. (they seemed to say Obama lost more - because he answered in kind. This is interesting as it parallels the Kerry joke flap - where he was critisized for striking back too hard (though he was postively dignified and in control vs Bill Clinton's Wallace flap). Hillary started this attack. It's like there are different rules for Clintons.)

I think the pundits missed something - Hillary's initial attack was strident, while Obama's response was calm. People who saw this - but who didn't already have a strong impression of Hillary likely would like her less - it also hits every negative Hillary personality stereotype. People may long for the warm, calm, strong, but not gutter fighter that they had in 2004.

Oddly, Hillary's success or lack of it, may affect the long term perception of 2004.

[sandnsea]

5. Who carries Clinton water

Probably should take notes. Anybody who thinks Obama lost on this is out of their minds. Geffen only said what people were already thinking about Hillary anyway. For her to attack Obama doesn't even make any sense, especially after what her supporters said about a black man dragging down the party. She comes off petty and vindictive. The pundits who are trying to spin the response against Obama are desperate because the initial attack was a miscalculation. It took remarks national that would have passed without notice otherwise, and got a whole lot of people agreeing about the negatives of a Clinton presidency. To now say Obama is down in the mud is just delusion because the initial attack didn't really drag him in it at all. I'm not going to trust any Democrat who says that, it's ridiculous and obviously talking points.

[Inuca]

6. Speaking of talking points...

.... did you see the examples on MTP (I think) this morning? Excerpts from talking points sent to Clinton supporters about how to counter various criticisms. Very Rovian. And on a related note "Beware the dreaded 'Clinton machine'" http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-chait25feb25,0,7357613.column?coll=la-util-opinion-commentary. And by the way, I 100% agree that Obama did not lose more in the spat, if anything he may have won a little. And most of what I heard/read in recent days also agrees with this. The only argument about this somehow benefiting Clinton is the "remove the halo" argument, which is mostly baloney.