Incoming! (Primary hits and why Hillary doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt)

[ProSense]

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Incoming!

It's hard to come up with an objective measure of which candidates are being attacked the most, but this ought to be a reasonably interesting proxy.

I looked at the press releases from five sources: the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign, the RNC, and the DNC, and counted the number of times that McCain, Clinton or Obama was mentioned in the headline of the press release. (For Obama press releases, which tend to have vague headlines like "Barack Obama Statement on Iran", I also counted hits in the press release abstract). Then I sorted the hits by the month of the campaign from September onward.

These figures were tallied by hand and so may be slightly imprecise, but you should certainly get the general idea. Also, this should be obvious, but the idea was to account for attacks only, so I didn't count instances in which say a DNC press release mentioned Clinton, or a McCain release mentioned McCain himself.



Let me also give you that data in tabular form, and then a few observations.



<...>

3. The Obama campaign does very, very little attacking (quite possibly too little), at least in the form of press releases. That doesn't mean that they won't go negative, but they prefer to wait for an opportunity to counter-punch and/or to do so somewhat surreptitiously. But what they won't usually do is to try and dictate the course of a news cycle with an attack.

4. In contrast, the Clinton press shop is always operating at a fever pitch, and much of that involves attacking their opponents. During March and April, the Clinton press shop was hitting Obama nearly once a day. But the Clinton campaign has also delivered considerably more hits on McCain than the Obama campaign has (at least through its press releases). Also, note that Clinton has considerably cut down on her hits on Obama for the past several weeks.

Hillary always wants the benefit of the doubt for her calculated statements...

• Summary: Hillary makes reckless comment, gets criticized, blames Obama
  
  
• Hillary's "some people" and Bill's "they" add up to pathetic. Who will clue them in that it's over?
  
  
• Stop clarifying what Hillary meant, it's clear. She also knew what Obama meant when he said "bitter"
  
  
• Hillary's op-ed is delusional crap and a lie and she should be ashamed

but always pushes Obama for other people's comments:

Obama Again Apologizes for a Preacher

<...>

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause," Obama said in a statement first posted by the Chicago Sun Times.

more

Clinton camp not satisfied

A statement from Wolfson:

Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics. We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pflegler's dispicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so.

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[papau]

16. You don't get the smearing of Hillary "press kits" sent out by David - when you do get back to me

Before you deny that this is occurring check out the transcript of ABC This Week for last Sunday's show where this was exposed

[ProSense]

22. BS! n/t

[Lucky 13]

2. Amazing to see it in black and white.

But you're telling us what we already know... well MOST of us anyway.

Thanks for doing this research.

[slinkerwink]

3. Wow. Clinton joined the RNC in attacking Obama.

[ProSense]

23. Pretty much. n/t

[blm]

30. Clintons always target Dems. Ever see their vaunted 'machine' work to oppose Bush the last 7yrs?

.

[roguevalley]

4. prosense, you done good. thank you for this. amazing how they

aren't here screeching. :)

[slinkerwink]

5. shhhhh....

:-)

[klook]

6. “The only thing worse than being talked about

... is not being talked about.” - Oscar Wilde

It's a measure of Obama's strength and viability that his opponents are resorting to ad hominem attacks on him.

I see one flaw in the data, though -- why is the column tabulating McCain hits on McCain blank? He's constantly shooting himself in the foot!

[K Gardner]

7. As usual, K&R. Although, I will be truly relieved when we can use your VAST TALENTS against

McCain and the GOP and you don't have to waste your time on freakin HILLARY.

It's maddening !

[Skip Intro]

8. Yeah, Hillary's been treated like royalty.

:rofl:

ProSense, what can I say. You certainly are a vigorous Obama supporter, who really likes links. You are the only poster I know on DU that can post threads full of links to other threads you've posted, and get away with it. You do what you do well. I wonder if you will still be with us after the nomination is over.

[AllentownJake]

11. No response to the OP

Flame the OP.

[Skip Intro]

18. I actually meant it as a compliment. Let ProSense decide if he/she's offended, eh?

[ProSense]

20. Let's see

You certainly are a vigorous Obama supporter, who really likes links.

A backhanded compliment, huh? Why do you hate links?

You are the only poster I know on DU that can post threads full of links to other threads you've posted, and get away with it. You do what you do well.

Do you know what you're talking about?

I wonder if you will still be with us after the nomination is over.

Compliment?


In any case, do you have a comment related to the content of the OP?

[redqueen]

26. In Hillaryworld, veiled insults are compliments! (nt)

[hokies4ever]

24. Your two cents bounced

:rofl:

[mindwalker_i]

9. Hey, those facts are

sexist.

[ProSense]

32. Everything is. n/t

[liberaldem4ever]

10. K&R Great post!

:kick:

[BigAnth]

12. Did that comment from Wolfson actually come out with

that spelling of "dispicable"???? That kind of misspelling wouldn't surprise me at all in your average DU post, but in an official statement from a "big time" presidential campaign???? That's really amateruish.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. 96-15

Sounds about right.

[Bensthename]

14. Good job.. Some one hasnt been "vetted" isnt that what this is all about?

Didn't they use to say that about another candidate?

[nsd]

15. K & R

[tiptoe]

17. content analysis. K&R! nt

[D23MIURG23]

19. Thats reassuring.

Reading some of the Pro-Hillary posts had me wondering which of us needed meds.

I like facts. Especially when they don't land me on seroquell.

[ProSense]

25. It is because

her hits have mostly backfired. n/t

[D23MIURG23]

28. And she can't possibly be responsible, so it must be Obama

and his dreaded "surrogates", who have run a dirty, race-baiting campaign.

Its nice to see actual documentation of who is the aggressor though, and who is using Aikido. I'd like to think that fact will help in the general, once the primary tempers have cooled.

:hi:

[ProSense]

21. Thanks,

for the comments and recs.

[Overseas]

27. Thank you. That's what it seemed like to me. //nt

[FrenchieCat]

29. any intelligent person has seen with their own eyes.....

Which is why Hillary no longer leads in California or New York or New Jersey.

[guruoo]

31. Illegit, because Obama camp used supporter network to launch attacks