Most of the primary voters - and party members overall - would vote for either candidate. There are real divisions, but most of them are overshadowed by agreement on the basic issues. This ad isn’t a particularly big deal, and if things go the way I think they will, where former Clinton voters are going to move over to Obama, her campaign style won’t be a big deal. If she starts saying really inflammatory stuff, yes, that might be a problem, but we’re not there yet.
Phlosphr it all depends on how they compete. Or at least the anti-HRC vote is no greater than it has been and the anti-Obama vote is not a major factor now and is unlikely to be one later.
If she somehow is competitive in the pledged delegate count after Mar 4 (a dozen or so) then they can compete with mutual respect and continue to slog it out to near the Convention so long as they constantly increasingly transition to a focus of getting one of them in in November.
It may help as they’ll dominate the news cycles.
OTOH if one or the other has a clear mandate by then as represented by pledged delegates the other will be just dividing the party. Any negativity as the general gets closer is divisive.
The powers that be will give her a chance to demonstrate a miracle on March 4 (even though she did do quite well in math, she does need a miracle there) but barring that the she will only look pathetic for staying at it after that and the supers will make that known. She needs to win both and in my assessment win both big to stay in the game.
She warned us about the vast right-wing conspiracy, she stood by her philandering, womanizing husband, she proposed “Hillarycare”, she told us that it takes a village and she declared, “We are the president.” I’m impressed! 
Seriously, though, her efforts to get involved in politics during Bill’s presidency made me feel like we had Evita Peron in DC. Maybe she had good intentions but she didn’t come across as someone who wanted to help but more as someone who wanted to tell us what to do. Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosalynn Carter were advocates for causes and worked hard to make changes but they never came across as abrasive or demanding. In fact, outside of Nancy Reagan, I can’t think of a recent First Lady that made such a negative impression on people.
Ok I gotcha.
DSeid That’s what I was looking for. Thank you.
The party will not unite behind her if she uses superdelegates to win after losing the overall delegate count from caucuses/primaries. It will seem like she’s been picked by elitists and that her nomination is the will of the Democratic Clinton Machine, not the will of actual Democrats.
I don’t think the ads are going to hurt anything.
Her rhetoric about being willing to use what the NY Times calls “potentially incendiary steps” in order to win could be a problem, though. Hopefully it’ll just cause her to lose and not affect anything overall.
God, I hate to defend Hillary, but that’s not much of a negative campaign ad. Seems pretty mild to me, but I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder.
BTW, I’ve already cast my CA vote (for Obama). I don’t much care for Hillary, but I could see myself voting for her in the general, even though I’d prefer Obama. Hillary vs McCain will be a tough choice, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a fairly common position for independent voters (I’m not registered with either party, and vote across party lines all the time).
I agree, the Wisconsin add is pretty mild by the standards of Clinton’s campaigning so far.
I think the “He has no plan for universal health care” line she’s using now is a little dirtier. He has a plan, she just thinks it will leave people out and he doesn’t. That’s like saying “she has no plan on the economy” just because Obama thinks that a “foreclosure freeze” is vague and nonsensical. Her line is a way of intentionally misleading voters.
As for the OP, I don’t think any negative campaigning on her part will ruin the party. I do think seating MI would do so.
Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.
I know you were just repeating the “talking points,” but I’ll respond anyway. . . Yeah, the rockin’ ‘90s that didn’t give us the universal healthcare she tried shoving down congress’s throat and was the beginning of their hatred of her, and the rockin’ ‘90s that saw the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by her husband, that some say is what opened the door to our current mortgage crisis? Those rockin’ '90s?
If she wants to claim any credit for those years, she’d better be willing to accept an equal proportion of blame, as well.
And from Knorf’s link:
The quality of where the win comes from? Are they serious? I simply cannot fathom the level of arrogance. Because Clinton doesn’t do as well in that kind of election, we should consider those states lesser quality?
I really, really hate that woman.
From The Onion
I’ll take it one step further: if that’s the worst it gets between them, then this contest is a fucking lovefest compared to most primary contests.
I mean, the ad is centered around factual differences: Hillary wants to debate in Wisconsin, and Obama doesn’t; Hillary’s healthcare plan covers everyone, and Obama’s doesn’t (sorry, Richard Parker, but that’s the consensus opinion outside the Obama camp); and Hillary wants to do something to prevent foreclosures that Obama doesn’t.
Hell, one of the three is even a substantive factual difference. That’s the sort of thing candidates should be going on about.
OK. But I’m not personally close the the “Democratic leaders.” Where can I read more about their fears?
Consensus? If you really believe that, you’re not paying attention. I know Paul “Grudge” Krugman doesn’t like the plan, but he’s not the only economics expert around. Robert Reich, who I happen to respect quite a bit (along with many progressives), had this to say:
Aside from disagreements among experts, her charge is also false because it changes the definition of UHC. She may think mandated coverage is a better policy, but that doesn’t mean it is the sine qua non of UHC–it’s not.
Bloomberg weighed in on it today.
No, they couldn’t! The democratic party is very much united and when it comes right down to voting, they will support their own.
And don’t forget, Obama has the support of a good majority of Independents, and yes, even Republicans.
I can guarantee you that Hillary would never have the vote of independents and especially republicans. No way in hell.
FWIW, Obama has issued an ad responding to Clinton’s.