Polls in the US suggest that Obama is taken a significant lead among Democrat voters and, most seriously for Clinton's campaign, in partiuclar among Clinton's core supporters: women, low-income families and political moderates. Her response, according to one aide talking to the New York Times, a "kitchen sink" fusillade against Obama that will focus on five points of perceived weakness in his experience and preparedness for government. Her tactic is to retain her older female voters while also trying to sow doubts in the minds of those currently leaning towards Obama.
There are serious problems with this however. Firstly it is perhaps not the most efficacious sight for candidates from the same party to be too negative about one another, it can expose rifts and give an appearance of weakness. More importantly for Clinton, given that she has not been too negative so far, it may seem as a last ditch act of desperation (as noted by Ed Pilkington). Furthermore, will going negative achieve the task required for Clinton? If she cannot win with a positive argument, why will attacking the opponent have the desired effect? Could attacks on Obama, who seems to have the charisma to have public popularity, be counter-productive and lose her public support? Clinton may already have been damaged by the allegation that she has circulated the below picture of Obama wearing traditonal Somali dress, could further tarnishing of her name be on the cards? We have seven days to find out.
Hillary claims that Americans “need a president who knows how to deploy both the olive branch and the arrows, who will be ready to act swiftly and decisively in a crisis.” Is this demonstrated by her style of campaigning and so is intended as a synonym for her Presidential style or is it just a bad plan?