Will Clinton and Obama be smart enough to avoid the fate of Dean and Gephardt?

[Jacobtm]

In 2003, Howard Dean was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. In fact, he was the nominee already. Everyone KNEW that Howard Dean was going to win the nomination. Everyone also KNEW that Dick Gephardt, midwesterner, union activist, next-door neighbor, would do well in Iowa, and perhaps was the only one who could stop Dean in Iowa.

The two campaigns KNEW that to secure a victory, all they had to do was squash the other campaign. And so, in the last weeks of the campaign in Iowa, the Dean and Gephardt campaigns began a series of negative attacks against each other, hoping to bring down the other, and boost up their own candidate.

Unfortunately for them, their tactics only half-worked. The negative ads against Dean brought him down in the polls. The negative ads against Gephardt brought him down in the polls. They worked so well, that insted of first and second, the pair finished third and fourth. The winner was some dickwad from Massachusetts and some pretty boy from down south.

So, at this point in the campaign, EVERYONE KNOWS that it's a 2 person race for the Democratic nomination. It's Hillary's race to lose; just as it had been Deans. Obama's close in most polls, and EVERYONE KNOWS that all he needs to do to win is get past Clinton.

So, when it comes down to it, do you think the Clinton campaign will understand that there's more than one other candidate in the race, and that you have to prop up your own candidate instead of focusing all your energy on tearing down others? Do you think the Obama campaign will understand how venemous an attack from the Clinton Campaign might turn out to be?

[Mr. Morden]

Don't know.  I actually think a good part of avoiding this is not allowing it to become too personal....that you're so riled up by the other guy's negative ads that you think you have to keep firing back, even while the whole back-and-forth is becoming mutually destructive.  Starkest example of this I've ever seen was the 1992 WI Dem. Senate primary (I lived in WI at the time, and was only in high school, but I was just starting to get interested in politics) between Russ Feingold, Joe Checota, and Jim Moody, in which Checota and Moody were the early frontrunners, and they just destroyed each other with negative ads, and kept going after each other even after Feingold started to pull ahead because the feud had taken on a life of its own.  Feingold ultimately destroyed them in the primary despite have the least amount of $ of the three, because the other two had spent all their $ attacking each other.  (OK, maybe this is starting to drift off topic, but the point is that Clinton and Obama should avoid that if they're smart.  )

[Likely Voter]

negative advertising works well...when there are only two candidates. But the attacker does not always benefit as IA 04 shows.

getting back to my conspiracy theory that Hillary is going to cut a deal with a second tier candidate to be her attack dog and take on Obama and/or Edwards

[Person Man]

Who would you say it would be? Hopefully, it would be Richardson or Gravel and not Dodd or Biden. We don't want a total New England ticket(NY is New England to the Bible Belt)....and though Alaska or NM is not the biblebelt, it will not draw the same ire. Then again, Kerry and Dukakis nominated a southerner too...