Up Next: Clinton Attacks Obama
In presidential politics, national front-runners of Hillary Clinton 's stature are allowed one loss like the one she suffered tonight in Iowa.
Walter Mondale and George W. Bush, for instance, bounced back from humbling New Hampshire defeats, and George H.W. Bush rallied after finishing third in Iowa in 1988. But none of those big-name front-runners tempted fate by falling short in two straight major contests. That dramatically raises the stakes for Clinton in New Hampshire, where a loss will put her in uncharted territory, as overwhelming front-runners go.
The good news for Clinton is that she has a well-oiled machine in place in New Hampshire, where she's loaded up on endorsements and where her operation is guided by some of the state's top political pros. There is also residual goodwill in the state for her husband, who will undoubtedly now ask Granite Staters to help make his wife another "Comeback Kid."
The bad news is that the race in New Hampshire was already tight before Iowans headed to their caucuses. Like all other Iowa winners, Barack Obama will receive a quick boost in the New Hampshire polls, and the Clinton campaign will only have five days to bring him back to earth. Plus, unlike past underdogs, Obama isn't scrambling to catch up with the front-runner when it comes to money and name recognition. He is already a well-established and well-funded candidate.
If Obama can hand Clinton back-to-back defeats, there is no telling what damage will be done to her standing in other states. There simply is no precedent in modern presidential politics for the clear national front-runner to be considered the clear loser in the first two states.
To avoid that fate, bet on one thing: The Clinton machine will go negative.
Already, there have been reports that Clinton has readied an attack ad for the New Hampshire airwaves, going after Obama over the details of his health care plan. There may be others in the days ahead. This is the same game the Clintons played the last time their White House ambition was in peril, 16 years ago when Paul Tsongas unexpectedly blocked their path. Bill Clinton then buried him with a wave of ugly—and misleading—attacks.
Obama, though, is better known and conjures warmer feelings than Tsongas. And Hillary, by contrast, doesn't have the innate ability to connect with voters that her husband did. It is certainly conceivable that the 2008 version of Clinton attacks will not resonate the way the 1992 version did.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.4
- 41.6
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
The Clinton machine will go negative.
ANd she hasn't already? Where have you been?
Her entire persona is nasty and negative. Just look at her shen she smiles. She smiles with her mouhgt, but not with her eyes.
A cold, brittle, self-absorbed, phony woman. GACK!
Sorry about the typos. :(
She will do what the Clintons always do: she will launch a series of unprincipled, vicious, false and misleading attacks, supported by a plausibly-deniable barrage of leaks about scandal. And this time, it won't work. The nation has seen this dishonest pair, and it has seen enough.
Mamie and you of all people talk about negative.You go girl. Talk about irony.
Barack Obama voters have basically made thier decision despite all the criticisms that have been said, conjured, leaked and or not implied.The Independents have narrowed this thing down to who has thier idealistic believes for ending the war. They no negative will not influence them but actually turn them off.
Going negative didn't help Romney he was ahead ubtil Huckabee's appeal won over the the Evangelicals despite the most blistering ads by Romney. Contrast that to little or no money Huckabees "Merry Christmas" ad.
The voters today are more savy, and sift through obvious b.s. Going negative won't even be Hillary's plan- trust me. She will sell herself as a "woman" with Baracks idealism for change and with the needed experience. Going negative doesn't work in ads nor blogs by writers on both sides.
Get real, if the voters are more savy, why in the world
would they choose Huckabee?
They may have finally had it with the Clintons, but I
will have to see it to believe it.
Mr. Thompson gave a speech on YOUTUBE and can you believe
it, it was intelligent, no going after anyone, adult thinking, He has ideas and more and we should watch him,
as he has experience with the rotten politcians and
knows the drill with them.
The Clinton's plan worked before and it can again, the
American people seem to like him, and he is a total
freak, they just love his charming ways, and he goes
on to destroy America with his actions and the would
vote for him today if they could.
When presidents are good looking, charming, the people
don't care. Isn't he cute and wholesome up there with
his guiter, or saxaphone, right?
Never underestimate the voters who never look at the
candidate until the night before and then picks some
"nice" thing or some small "not nice" thing and
votes accordingly.
the lady that asked Mclain how to beat the b**** well Obama just showed you. We don't want nor need hillry she can go to china and take billy with her.
Hillary Clinton will be elected president.