Whining about bloggers being negative misses the point
by WonkoKevin
From MakeThemAccountable.com, a memo from Peter Daou, Hillary Clinton’s internet director:
I’m writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.
I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn’t run a negative campaign against Hillary. I think it’s time to put that misconception to rest. The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a “full assault” on her “over ethics and transparency.” To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this “full assault” on Hillary?On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, “Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we’ve been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. … I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I’m not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign.” The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary’s integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her.
Every candidate has bloggers who will attack others. Since everyone has them, they largely cancel one other out. Further, such zealots tend to only be listened to by each other, thus they’re not in the business of influence. Sustained negative attention does NOT kill a candidate’s popularity necessarily–see Hillary Clinton’s popularity through last spring, summer, and fall. It’s when they stop paying attention that things get dangerous (see: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson). Clinton’s popularity has not been affected by the sentiment of her buzz, it’s been linked to the amount of her buzz. When her buzz has been high, she has been healthy in the polls, regardless of whether the buzz is positive or negative. If I were writing a letter to her bloggers, I would tell them to spend their time building up Clinton, that’s what she needs now.
