Once again, another superb diary, Alegre. Kudos!

Seriously - if they're so sure of winning this thing then WHY are they attacking Hillary in such a personal and vicious way?

He's worried you guys - that's why.

I'm personally shocked to hear that Obama's campaign has actually criticized his opponent for the Democratic nomination.  What's next?  At this rate, he may actually start arguing that he would make a better president than her!  The outrage!

Seriously folks, this is silly.  Hillary is running 3am adds and saying that Obama isn't fit to be CIC -- although apparently John McCain is in her book.  Next to that, everything you've posted looks pretty tame to me.  But feel free to feign outrage if it feels good.    

You said:

What I've seen so far has nothing to do with the issues - it's just more of the same.

I must vigorously reject the notion that Obama's campaign is "more of the same."  In fact, it is by far the nastiest, most personal, and most destructive campaign I have ever seen waged by a major Democratic contender, and I can remember parts of every campaign since '64 and have been a Presidential campaign junky since the birth of C-SPAN.

Obama made it clear the week before the S. Carolina primary that the old rules of Democratic primary politics just didn't apply to him, and that he was willing to do whatever he could not just to win but to ruin his opponent as a viable candidate and indeed as a figure of national respect.

More of the same?  Not even.

Thanks for the great article Alegre.   I laughed my head off today when I saw the blue dress making the front page.

So much for the campaign of new politic.  What a joke!

Also, the front-runners should not be afraid of the revote right?.
If he is so confident with his electability, let's revote Michigan then.

He's been negative from the beginning, against her, only her, and he said he'd give her "chicago slap down" if that's what it took, that's a quote, She said 'the fun starts" and got all trashed in the media for not taking his manly smack down threat seriously.  She speaks about her better qualifications, to do the job, but she never speaks ill of him, and in contrast he goes after her character, 'she'll do anything to be elected," which generally means throw a grandmother under the bus.  If it were campaigning hard and doing her best to prepare for the job, he'd have said it differently.  I used to like him, but I now can hardly bear him, his sanctimony and smack down don't go over with me. Many working women have been passed over for a less qualified man, and the 'reason's are often what's said about Hillary, she's divisive, no one would take orders from her, and he's even added, she slept her way to the top.  I't great that he's finally being called on this in the media, although barely, but women have seen this from the start, recognized it, it made us feel sick.  He's two people, the one who claims to be above politics and empathic to all, and the one who's won support by trashing the more qualified girl.  How retro?  

Outstanding as always!!!
I donated earlier today!

Well done.

When he talked about transcending politics he apparently didn't mean he was going to be above it all.  Maybe he merely meant he going to be superlative?  Like, the most hypocritical campaign ever? Or....

Apparently, Republicans don't have a monopoly on candidates who mean the opposite of what they say. When Bush says our economy's going great, we all know we're in for some really bad times. When Dick Cheney says the war's going great, we know it's going to sh*t!

When Barry "Barack" Obama says he's above it all when it comes to the personal attacks, voters know he will luxuriate in the mud. When Barry says he's the candidate of change, voters know he will be the candidate of status quo.

when Team Obama touched the "blue dress" and the YUCK! factor backfired all over the place.

Another cut and paste diary from Hillary.com.

Look - there is little doubt that Obama has been forced to 'point out differences' (you remember this phrase, Wolfson used to use to deflect their campaigns own negative attacks early on).

But as Setrak says, the Obama campaign figured it could stay above Hillary's Washington-as-usual politics...but when she started the (self-styled)kitchen sink strategy  and then began endorsing McCain (such a colossal, stupid mistake that will come back and bite the democrats in November) - Obama had little choice.

I still think it has been fairly mild. You can (and you will) cut and paste Wolfson's opp research all day - but the ONLY people in America who think that Obama has been the 'negative' one are the people on MyDD (and maybe Halperin).

You are basically preaching to a choir here - with the exception of a few of us who are lingering just to keep you honest.

Look a Newcomer Oreo. I'm on top and bottom.

mmmmm....cookies.

Excellent diary.  As always.  It is interesting it seems that some of the Obamaphiles seem to be disappearing.  I am hoping they are starting to see through the hypocricy of their guy.  That would be such a blessing.

Is that why the rec'd list is full of negative, pro-Clinton diaries?  I guess that shows that she's in second place.

people offer subjective opinion as incontrovertible fact.

Front-runners don't go negative.  But they do respond to attacks.

The Obama campaign has the misimpression that because they are currently in the pledged delegate lead, they have won the nomination.  They fume because Hillary won't quit, even though she hasn't lost the race yet!  Just like Hillary Clinton, they too need superdelegates votes to win.  They try to change the rules that govern superdelegates, and demand they vote for the pledged delegate leader even if that candidate hasn't won.  They are not looking at the truth of their situation.  If Hillary gets the momentum, if Obama's negatives in the general election start to show, if Florida and Michigan voters are considered, if Electoral College vote estimates are compelling, etc, then that's why superdelegates are there--to exercise their judgment and take their turn to vote.  Obama's campaign says none of this will happen, so why are they fuming so much?

Hillary should concede.

Great Diary Alegre! As Always.

Slowly and surely the mystique of the Obama Hope Express is finally becoming revealed.

Your contributions are enormous!

Excellent post.  Playing hardball is one thing; hypocrisy is another.  The Obama campaign has been depressingly hypocritical with the holier-than-thou attitude.

Yes because all the time Clinton was the "front-runner" she never went negative.  Sure.

Obama learned his lesson after Ohio and the NAFTA lies, which I do believe cost him the State.  I doubt he will make that mistake again.

I've seen a lot more negativity out of the Clinton campaign over the past few months but it doesn't mean Obama hasn't gone negative, I guess that's the cost you pay when you start the silly season.  The Clinton's tactics have been divisive and Clinton.

Hillary and Obama should start bashing and defining McCain instead of each other.

Then we can see who is the most effective to win against McCain.

Start with correct McCain's gaffe or lie or ignorance on AlQeda-Iran link.

If I try to run a positive campaign and you lie to the voters about me, all of a sudden if I say that you lied, I'm not running a positive campaign any more?

By that logic, you could say anything and everything, no matter how slanderous or untruthful, and if I did anything to set the recored straight, I would no longer be running a positive campaign.

Let's try this another way.  Alegre, let's say that you are the frontrunner in a two-person race between you and me.  Let's say I intentionally lie, distort your record, and negatively characterize and marginalize your supporters.  Why would it be off-limits for you to tell the truth about my dishonest, divisive campaign style?

You're basically saying that Hillary should be able to lie, cheat and steal all she wants, and if Obama says anything about it, he's "going negative."

Those words have been used by Obama or his surrogates to describe Hillary's campaign because that's exactly what Hillary's campaign has been.

Lying about NAFTA.  Lying about Bosnia.  Marginalizing entire states as "boutique" and irrelevant.  Repeatedly injecting race into the campaign.  Insulting entire groups of voters as latte-sipping elitists.  Calling Bill Richardson an irrelevant Judas.  Repeatedly praising John McCain at Obama's expense to do her best to make sure that Obama will lose to McCain if he gets the nomination, giving her another shot at the WH in 2012.

Oh, but if he says anything about it, he's going negative.

You have a lot in common with Clinton.  You'll say anything, just like she will.

I wish you would devote some of your time and energy going after John McCain.  How can some of you (Pro-Clinton or Pro-Obama) consider yourselves true democrats when you continually disgrace both our nominees??  Are you not giving the GOP Party exactly what they want???

I guess if you want 4 more years of the same policies, keep walking this path and I assure you either candidate will lose the GE!!!

Alegre lists a number of very bad words in quotes as evidence of how low Obama will stoop. But let's take a closer look at some of those nasty quotes:

"Disingenuous." Obama was responding to a question about Hillary's claim that she has no control over the releasing of her documents as First Lady. It wasn't entirely true, so she WAS being disingenuous about this, which makes Obama's choice of words entirely fair. What alternate word should he have used in this instance?

"Divisive." Obama never uses the word "divisive" in the interview you linked to.

"Untruthful." Your source points to several instances where Obama said that Clinton wasn't being straight with people on specific issues. This is a fair claim to make, and one that her team has made repeatedly about Obama. Like it or not, both camps have been known to stretch the truth. But he did not make a blanket statement about Clinton's honesty in any of the examples you cited.

"Polarizing." Obama never uses the word "polarizing" in the article you linked to.

"Calculating." Obama never uses the word "calculating" to describe Clinton in the article you linked to. What he said is that "poll-tested positions, calculated answers might be how Washington confronts challenges, but it's not how you overcome those challenges."

"Saying Whatever It Takes to Win." This phrase is in direct response to Clinton's announcement that they will throw "the kitchen sink" at Obama. If you say you're going to throw everything you can at someone, you can't get offended if they parrot back your explicitly stated strategy.

I'm not going to go through every bad word or phrase on Alegre's list, but my point is that many of these words were never used by Obama to describe Clinton. And they certainly don't represent "gutter" politics. There have been REAL instances of gutter politics in the past few days on both sides --  Carville's Judas comment, Fischer's blue dress embarrassment -- but calling someone disingenuous or misleading doesn't qualify.  

    you think obama has gone negative, but Clinton hasn't? Or you believe Obama has no right to go negative since he's winning, but Hillary does since she's losing.

  Either way, your position is absurd. It's almost comical.

MSM journalists perpetuating the false claim that Clinton won Texas, I can understand. But I hold bloggers to a higher moral standard.

Obama's combined delegate count (primary, caucuses) in Texas is higher than Hillary's.

Someone explain to me how that's not a win in Texas??

Barack Obama has run one of the least negative political campaigns in memory. When John Kerry didn't respond forcefully enough to attacks he was roundly criticized, and rightfully so. The Obama campaign avoids negative politics, but will respond in kind when attacked, as he has been for months since it became obvious that there was no legitimate way for Sen. Clinton to win. In point of fact Sen. Obama has been far less negative than his advisers have at times wanted him to be. Sen. Clinton, in fact, has demonstrated that she will stoop to any level to win, and if Sen. Obama responds in defense to some of that, you have a lot of nerve being critical.

Drag your opponent into the gutter and then attack him for going negative.  

"since he got his butt kicked in Texas" 51-47?
Ya know...These numbers are "butt kicked".
per cent's via CNN
       Obama   Clinton
AK       75      25
CO       67      32
DE       53      43
DC       75      24
GA       67      31
HA       76      24
ID       79      15
IL       65      33
KS       74      26
LA       57      36
ME       59      40
MD       60      37
MN       66      32
UT       57      39
VT       59      39
VA       64      35
WI       58      41
MS       61      37
NE       68      32
SC       55      27

I only posted where it was 10% or higher..
Feel free to Post Clinton wins of 10% or higher.

okey-doked.  

Of course, if you've only seen him pander to white audiences, you've never heard those words.

I just wish he were "vetted" the same way Hillary is:

Summary: In her latest column, Kathleen Parker wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "effectively mocked her audience" during her March 4 speech in Selma, Alabama, and showed "disrespect for the people gathered" when "she hijacked" Rev. James Cleveland's hymn "I don't feel noways tired."

(snip)

No one can help the voice they're born with -- much. But they can learn to adjust the volume, and to take the temperature of a room before speaking. And especially, to avoid faking a local accent, pretending to be something they're not. Southern, for instance.

In Selma, Ala., last weekend at the "Bloody Sunday'' commemoration, Hillary auditioned for a dual role -- not just Southerner, but Southern preacher in the style of a Martin Luther King Jr.

(snip)

It was clear that Hillary was trying to imitate the oratorical style of her black predecessors to the pulpit -- something no white person should ever attempt. But what she must have imagined sounded like passion was to mere mortals the screech of an angry woman.

(snip)

Her audience, nevertheless, was polite and affirming (Southerners are like that), even as she turned on the worst fake accent since Kevin Costner played Robin Hood. Shouting the words from a gospel hymn, Clinton was so off-key that anyone tuning in would have assumed it was a joke -- a parody of a politician speaking in native tongues, Granny Clampett auditioning on "American Idol.''

(snip)

In politics, we're not supposed to talk about style over substance, especially when it comes to women. But no male politician would get away with what Hillary pulled in Selma. Moreover, speaking style is not irrelevant to leadership, as Americans have noted the past six years.

Tone. Voice. Cadence. These may seem superficial, less important than the substance of a candidate's message. But they suggest something innate about the person speaking -- awareness (or the lack thereof) and the ability to merge with an audience, to persuade, calm, inspire and reassure. Or not.

When a person's style distracts from substance, we have a problem. When a person's voice makes listeners recoil and want to be somewhere else, that person is not going to be an effective communicator.

But what about substance? What was Clinton thinking when she hijacked a gospel hymn and effectively mocked her audience? Her speech exposed not just an incompetent ear, but disrespect for the people gathered.

Would Clinton affect a Brooklyn accent with a Jewish audience remembering the Holocaust? OY VEY, LEMME TELLYA, HONEY!

(snip)

Sen. Clinton's voice sends mannequins into a fetal curl. She is the rain to Bill's parade.

It may not be Hillary's fault that her voice sounds like it was fashioned from metal, but it is her fault that she sounds like a car alarm when she's handed a microphone. It is her fault that she panders -- badly -- to her audiences.

Her performance last weekend in Selma revealed more than atonality. Like a warped bell, Hillary Clinton rings untrue.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007030700 14

Sounds like Hillary Clinton got hoodwinked, bamboozled, and okey-doked, all rolled into one!

OOPS...
overlooked
          Obama     Clinton
ND        61         37
AL        56         42

sorry about that...

more oops...
WY   61   38

Get the picture?
Because most of Obama's wins have "kicked butt"..
that is why he has attained a lead in regular
delegates that HRC will not surpass.

The Big State only DLC philosophy is over.
50 State competition is on...

Alegre, your "sic"s are misplaced: "politics" is commonplace as a singular noun.

Black is white, pink is blue, up is down, and left is right.  

It's quite amusing for a supporter of the trailing candidate to lecture the front-runner about what is appropriate behavior for a candidate of his station.

The pure demonization of the Clintons is really remarkable. How do you preach change and be a uniter if you're comparing the most recent two term Democratic President to McCarthy? If Obama wins this thing my GE vote is not a given. I'm just sick of it.

You're right!!!  Obama shouldn't go negative.

You know what?  Clinton shouldn't either.

They're both on the same team.