Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Candidate

For Week 2 of the candidate diaries, I want to move away from issues and ideology and start looking at the Clinton campaign from a purely strategic standpoint:

Hillary Clinton entered this campaign facing two hurdles that are unique, or at least amplified, by the fact that she is the first female candidate in the 230 year history of our country to have a legitimate chance of being elected President:

1) To an even greater extent than male candidates, Clinton had to cross the "commander-in-chief" threshold. Americans will not elect a President unless they believe there is sufficient experience and resolve to handle national security. This, of course, has been a long-standing knock on potential women candidates. They are too weak.

2) Hillary Clinton has been portrayed as "cold", "strident", "aggressive" and any number of other euphemisms for "bitchy". Why the animosity? It's again a gender-based issue. Specifically, when she came to Washington, Clinton broke the mold of June Cleaver first ladies in pill box hats, white gloves, and elegant gowns working on "women's projects" like decorating the White House for Christmas. She was the first to have a professional career. And, the first to tackle serious policy issues that were viewed as "men's work". This was a generational change. The country was afraid of women assuming these roles and thus Clinton became a natural target for the attack machine. We all saw the dog whistle codes: from the subtle "shrill" to the more aggressive "lesbian" attacks.

So, entering the campaign, Clinton faced the daunting strategic challenge of communicating both her toughness (or bad ass-ness, if you will) and her softer, humanizing side. The most impressive thing about her campaign to date is that she has managed to do both.

I won't go into much detail on the "commander-in-chief" toughness. We all have seen those efforts from her vote in 2002, to her seat on the Armed Services Committee, to her smackdown of Donald Rumsfeld in 2006 (see video below), to her forcing the Pentagon to discuss planning, to her commanding positions on national security in the debates. Suffice to say that 58% of all Americans now view her as having crossed the commander-in-chief threshold and, in fact, she is even begrudgingly respected by Republican pundits in this area. This is no small accomplishment. Not only do few Presidential candidates cross the threshold, she is the first woman in US history to do so.

Clinton smackdown of Rumsfeld

The more fascinating side is the Clinton effort to humanize the candidate. I see six specific techniques they have used:

1) Have fun on the campaign trail. Real or not, I don't know. But, she has been disciplined in smiling and being good natured. For example, look what happens whenever she is attacked. She always answers with a laugh and a dismissal of the attack. "I just have to laugh." "Well, I don't expect Karl Rove to endorse me any time soon."  This is backed up by self-deprecating humor including the Sopranos parody video, the poster showing her hairstyles she gave to attendees at the hairdressers convention, the jokes about her singing the national anthem on YouTube, stopping a Dairy Queen with Bill, etc.

2) Use personal stories to connect on a human level with voters. This has been consistent in every campaign appearance, using personal anecdotes to draw connections. Sometimes, it's sports: "Cubs, not Sox" or "my father would be so proud to see me standing on the 10 yard line at Soldier Field". Sometimes, it's family vacations: "I remember driving from Arkansas with Bill and Chelsea to Hilton Head, back before there were so many golf courses and hotels." Sometimes it's political, "I remember when Bill and I first came to Nashua, NH." Or the stories she told of NY firefighters at the Firefighters' Union convention. Or, her telling the story of working with Marian Wright Edelman in South Carolina (see video below). Of course, none of this would work if she didn't actually have a personal story connecting her with each group (and the best advance team in the business).

Clinton in South Carolina

3) Emphasize a conversation with voters. She announced her campaign on the internet in a casual living room setting and has followed that with a series of conversational videos. She has used the town hall Q&A format throughout the campaign.

4) Frame issues and policies in terms of real people. Her TV ad is a perfect example. While it is a viscious putdown of the Bush administration, the message is a personal one to voters who feel "invisible" to their government. By acknowledging their difficulties in a quiet, sympathetic way, Clinton makes a human connection and offers the hope that a more caring, competent government might be able to help.

5) Stay relentlessly positive on the campaign trail. She has steadfastly refused to attack fellow Democrats, instead responding with a call for party unity, even when attacked. The most striking example was in the AFL-CIO debate when she was given the opportunity to respond to attacks and answered with her "I'm your girl" party unity for a victory in 2008 answer. That took incredible message discipline. She obviously very aware that attacking Democrats is counterproductive to goal of making her more likeable.

6) Speak directly to women. The classic example is her use of the "bring your brooms, we've got cleaning to do in Washington" rhetorical device and her reference to the women's movement and her mother today.



Display:


Second time you've said this (3.00 / 3)

"I won't go into much detail on the "commander-in-chief" toughness. We all have seen those efforts from her vote in 2002..."

This is the second time that you've actually used her 2002 vote for the Iraq use of force authorization as a good thing. That really sticks out to me that you think it was a smart choice and a good vote on her part simply because you think it boosts her "commander-in-chief toughness." Wow. Just wow.


by Quinton on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:25:39 AM EST

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 2)

Yes. Purely from a political standpoint, I believe her 2002 authorization vote was essential positioning for winning the 2008 election.

You have to consider the political sense of the country at the time. 70% of the electorate supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Had Clinton cast a meaningless "no" vote, she would have been indelibly framed as "waving the white flag in the global war on terror" -- a frame that she never would have overcome, IMO.

BTW, I feel the same way about her equally meaningless "no" vote on funding for the war a couple of months ago. In absolute terms, that was also the "wrong" vote, but politically there was no choice.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:41:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 3)

Your post reads like jedi mind tricks. You think she had to vote the way she did not for moral reasons (I mean lets exclude the deaths that have happened including American ones and tens of thousands of disabled or the tens of thousands of Iraqis dead and a destabilized country). She had to do so because despite the same percentage of Americans (70 percent) being against the war or all this mayhem, because it was necessary so that what? So that she would have a chance of winning the Presidency. When you say "Democrat" what does that word mean to you? If you say she did it for principle, even if I don't believe it, I could at least accept that. but this, this isn't an argument that I imagine CLinton would want to make to the American public. I voted for the war vote because I wanted to be President in 2008. Is this really what you want to argue? Cold and calculating doesn't begin to cover such an argument.  I find your whole logic as a Clintonite to be baffling.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:53:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

I don't speak for the Clinton campaign. I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Given that neither vote had any bearing on the outcome (like me voting for Dukakis in Massachusetts), I believe that Clinton made the correct votes in both instances, given the political and policy options at the time the votes were cast.

The 2002 AUMF vote was successful in forcing Sadaam to accept the UN inspection team six months later, something he had not allowed for the prior four years.

The funding vote last spring was the "wrong" vote as a matter of policy, but one which sent a strong message from one of the country's leading political figures. As a Democrat, I'm actually a little angry at Harry Reid for putting our Senators in that position. That was a lose-lose vote, IMO.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:07:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 6)

Well, all I can is as a Democrat and progressive thank God you don't speak for Clinton because your argument given the deaths involved and what its cost this country financially and morally- well it's kind of just plain repugnant. There is no nice way to say that. The idea that you would justify this as necessary to win the Presidency says something is wrong with the moral barometer here. Killing people is not justified as a way to win the Presidency. Maybe I am being politically naive to say this, but I thought as  progressive and Democrat, that should have been obvious. Apparently I am wrong.

It's never okay. Edwards, whom I support, was wrong on that vote. So was Clinton. Trying to spin it is one thing, but the way in which you are choosing to do it is to surrender all politics to at best an amoral quagmire, and at worse an immoral hell that I don't think we want to see our country go. I mean- it may already be there given the ease with which you make this argument, but still wow. Just when I thought I had read it all.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 2)

I agree with you 100%


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 1)

I agree too. Totally freaking me out dude.

:O


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 1)

I also agree. Well said, bruh21.


by Korha on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Blue -- Its easy to say you would not have voted for a war when you were not in the Senate.  


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i believe... (none / 0)

that hwc has identified himself as a centrist...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

We've had our dust-ups over this primary before, but I have to agree with you here. Clinton's 2002 AUMF vote was a mistake. That vote has caused thousands of American deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, the destabilization and imminent theocratization of the only secular middle-eastern country, nearly a trillion dollars spent, and nothing at all to show for it.

Granted, Clinton's vote was not the deciding vote, but by that logic, no one's was. In fact, by that logic, no one has any responsibility for the outcome of any issue that was not decided by a margin of a single vote. I know I'm not ready to forgive all the Bush 2000 and 2004 voters, or (god help me) the 2000 Naderites.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:10:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

The Vote in 2002 was not to authorize Bush to go to war as a first choice it was to give him the authority as a last resort.  After diplomacy was exhausted and after the UN Inspectors finished their work.  Bush lied to Congress and he lied to the American people.  He created a strawman and then the need to attack. There was a firestorm of war propaganda.  From what we are now hearing, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were pressured to go along.  Colin Powell spoke to the UN about moble labs of chemical weapons in Iraq.  Something for which he has now apologized.  I didn't blame the Democrats then and I don't now.  This is Bush's war of choice and he will keep it going till he leaves office.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, but... (none / 0)

every one knew that bush would take the vote and invade iraq.  sure, it delayed him a little.  he was pursuing the united nations strategy, but it was obvious from the bush doctrine that he was going to do what he wanted.

the problem i have with all this is that democrats who should have known better compromised with bush and didn't stand up to him.  iraq was the wrong battlefield and this vote was the right place to make that stand...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah, but... (none / 0)

Did everyone know that?  Seems that your hindsight is 20/20.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:26:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i can't say... (none / 0)

i knew it (so, of course, i think everyone should have known it), and it's what driven me for the past few years...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i can't say... (none / 0)

You knew so everyone should have known. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.  Perhaps we should have counted the votes in Florida and then none of this would have happened.  


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah... (none / 0)

i really don't like to think that i'm that much smarter than the president (or those who are running for president).  makes me think they are idiots.  afterall, we're not talking about some little thing, we talking about an immoral invasion based on deceit and innuendo.  making the wrong choice was monumental...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:13:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah... (none / 0)

You know that and I know that.  How come Bush still doesn't get it?  He will never end this war as long as he is in office.  We know one thing every Democrat running for President will end this war.  However, no Republican running for President will end this war why don't they get it yet?  Shouldn't that concern you if anothe Republican gets in.


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:49:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah, but... (none / 0)

There were 8 million people in the street in one day protesting this, from every nation. With this much worldwide opposition you think she would have at least read the intelligence before she voted for it? This is not about hindsight or foresight it is about judgement. And since I can't believe she is that naive, I believe it was a cold calculated assessment of the risk of voting against it.


by jazzyjay on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah, but... (none / 0)

Bush called all those people and focus group and there were no more demonstrations.  This is Bush's war, it always has been.  Hillary among others including John Edwards who co-sponsored the bill gave Bush the authority if diplomacy failed and if wmd were found in Iraq to attack. He sent the inspectors away and attacked. Your problem is with G W bush.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

What is facinating is that his analysis is probably correct. Her vote was cold and calculating, with her ambition at the bottom of it. Remember the context though, there were millions in the street protesting this war, so for her to turn her back and vote for it anyway, was to say to the progressive community who cares what you think, by the time I run for office this war will be over and forgotten, and you will have to accept me cause I will run this "I'm your girl" campaign, using my name recognition to make me seem unbeatable.


by jazzyjay on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:36:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 1)

In 1994 Dick Cheney said it would have been foolish during the Gulf War to take Saddam out and that too many American lives would be lost.  Iraq would end up in a Civil War.  However, in 2002 his hair was on fire to do just what he said would fail in 1994.  Do you think in 1994 Cheney calculated that he would be the Vice President in 2002?  In 2002 Hillary never thought about being President in 08.  


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Are you kidding, Hillary has been running for president her whole life.


by jazzyjay on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Your comment makes me laugh.  Its so ridiculous. Only in the 70's did women even begin to get parity with men in the workplace.  It would have been unthinkable for a woman to believe she could have been President until the last few years and with your additude, its probably unthinkable now.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

I've been thinking about something similar in the past few days. If Democrats/Liberals/Progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's obvious Support for war (and deaths of 100s of thousands of Iraqis), her support for the blatant and obvious theft of Iraqi and Afghan's resources; Her whoring to both pharmaceutical companies as well as her whoring to the Military Industrial Complex....then what the @#$#$ does it mean to be a progressive/Liberal/Democrat? If you're comfortable voting for a war/establishment candidate, then are you not bush-cheney lite?


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Everything on the political spectrum is relative. John Edwards is also Bush-Cheney Lite if you compare him to Kucinich.

Without comment to the substance of your accusations, your word choice ("whoring"?) reflects more than a little misogyny. It's always amazing to me how quickly otherwise prinicpled progressives devolve into the worst kind of sexism in their opposition to Clinton. I oppose Edwards, but you don't hear me calling him effeminate or effete. You don't hear the Obama detractors call him uppity or using plantation metaphors. Stop the misogynistic name-calling.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:26:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Bullshit. I use the word 'whoring' to describe politicians of both genders regularly, as do many people I know.

I believe some people use her gender to protect her from certain attacks. The most common one is in regards to her aggressiveness. The argument goes that a man can be more aggressive and get away with it. Again, bullshit. Clinton is one of the most aggressive candidates I've seen. Sha has earned that label the hard way, and her gender had nothing to do with it.

And remember:

Gore was considered "cold".
Giuliani is considered "aggressive".
Kerry was considered "calculating".

So clearly this sort of criticism is not reserved for women.
by anevarez on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Gore was NOT considered "cold" -- the adjective most frequently used was robotic. "Cold" has a special place for degrading women, what with its consonance with "frigid."

"Aggressive" doesn't have anything to do with this debate. It's "ambitious," when used as an insult, that is misogynistic. Of COURSE she's ambitious; what unambitious person runs for President? It's just that society doesn't like ambitious women.

Kerry was never called "calculating." "Bumbling," "inept," and "flip-flopping" were the terms I heard.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Note the 1st and 3rd paragraphs

Calculating opportunist

4th paragraph

As for aggressive, it was the diarist who used that word initially:

2) Hillary Clinton has been portrayed as "cold", "strident", "aggressive" and any number of other euphemisms for "bitchy".

by anevarez on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 4)

I'm very suspicious of any person who prizes their own political needs above the best interests of America as a whole.  Our leaders should be looking out for us, not for how the next election.  Otherwise, they will be no different than the Republican Congress that we defeated last year--just paying attention to fulfilling Karl Rove's goal of winning at all costs.  We need to be better than the Bush Republicans; we need to look for the good of America before the good of our political fortunes.


by msrpotus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:19:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 1)

...we need to look for the good of America before the good of our political fortunes.

I don't personally believe that electing another Republican in 2008 would serve "the good of America".

I mean, Kucinich would probably pass the netroots' purity tests. He would also lose to any of the top tier Republican candidates. He couldn't get up and over the "commander-in-chief threshold" even if he put on a helmet and rode in a tank.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:32:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Well, given what you say as to the reason why the vote is justified, why should we trust your instincts as a Democrat?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:44:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

I'm a registered Independent.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:00:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Oh, God!

Here we go.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Blue--Obama seems to opposed debates though.  Because he can't take the competition...


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:02:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

good for you. doesn't impress me when you are amking arguments that are morally bankrupted.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:32:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

msr--Then you don't really believe in this country.   You don't believe that a change in leadership will make the difference.  I am sorry for you.  Cynicism has never gotten us anywhere.  Great leaders like Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy had bold ideas and were able to affect change. I guess you had better get out of the way because if Hillary becomes President THERE WILL BE CHANGE.  Count on it.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

I guess I don't see the calculation in terms of, I will be running for POTUS, so I will authorize this war.  I think Bill Clinton had a lot of blow-back from the Republican Congress when he proposed the use of or used military action.  They claimed it was wag the dog diversionary tactics when he struck Afghanistan. There were a lot of Repubs who were against doing anything in Bosnia.  I think she looked at it from this perspective, and has said as much.  I think she understood the significance of her vote, but also believed in giving the President the room to maneuver.  I also believe she is a hawk on Defense, which is also why she gave George Bush the authority.  More than her IWR vote, her membership on the Armed Services Committee has added the necessary gravitas to her campaign.  Again she learned from the pain of seeing the Pentagon (military side) ridicule Bill Clinton and play him off against the Repub Congress.  She went into the Senate and through hard work developed the respect of the men in uniform (I use men becase that is who is 99% of the top brass).  This assured that there would be no whisper campaign about her ineptitude where military matters were concerned.


by Kingstongirl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

this logic is fanscinating. you think she now has the respect of themilitary or of the general american public or democratic voters such as yourself?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 1)

Well she has my vote.
As for the American puplic, they will eventually cast their vote.
As for the military comment, I stand by that too.
by Kingstongirl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

American public


by Kingstongirl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

well that certainly makes me feel better about this country to hear you stand by killing folks so that a "progressive" can win. As I said some of you are truly frightening, and I doubt clinton would agree with you.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 3)

It frightens me, frankly, that with your argumentation you actually support John Edwards, as he was one of the CO-SPONSORS of the AUMF in question here.   Seems morally bankrupt to support someone who (in your words) sent "thousands of Americans to their death," in fact, underwrote and put his name RIGHT ON THE BILL to send thousands of Americans to their deaths, just because you think that he may be able to beat Clinton, who you apparently dislike with major vigilance.  

At least others don't argue in such a duplicitious way for or against candidates.  I for one don't view the AUMF in the light you do, I saw it as a compromise bill to get Bush to cave into diplomatic pressures, get the UN and inspectors involved, instead of just ignoring the OTHER AUMF which gave Bush a free pass to do as he pleased.  Desmoinesdem shows that she understands such nunaces, too.  But, with you arguing that it was an actual sure DEATH SENTENCING how can you possibly support one of the actual co-sponsors of said DEATH WARRANT?   It makes no sense, and is positively frightening, because it shows what some are willing to accept (in their minds) because of intense dislike they harbor inside.      


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

you can continue to pretend not to get the point I am making all you want. I am sure it will convince your fellow supporters. But all I am reading is blah, blah blah. YOu haven't answered my crique of what HWC is saying. You and I know that. So, stop wasting your time posting these lame responses. it may work on low info voters, but here it's just insulting.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

bruh--The new California poll shows that Hillary is leading among all voters.  Those who pay attention to politics and those who don't.  Be honest please.  You are not a Democrat.  


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

George--right they let their hatred get in the way of their reasoning.  


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Kingston--Thank you for your rational thinking.  She has my vote too.  I wonder if some of these netroots are really Republicans.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she definitely believes in the presidential... (none / 0)

prerogative.  after the abuse of this power by bush, i can't find any persuasive reason to support such a concept...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:38:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

That sounds better, and I hope you're right. Though that still speaks to poor judgment on her part. The IWR resolution was a carte blanch to the Bush administration, and she should have understood that.


by Korha on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary buying votes in South Carolina (none / 0)

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/a rchives/009212.php


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:18:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary gives women a bad name! (none / 0)

The corporate media is concealing much important info about Hillary....
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007 /05/18/1281

However, if hwc and other Centrists believe in Karl Rove's theory of the means justify the end - it's likely they'll see nothing wrong with Hillary's evil associates and tactics.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:28:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Yes, maybe she made a political bet by voting the way she did, but if so, it's a bet she LOST.

Let's say Hillary voted against the war, and loudly made the case that we should be continuing to go after bin Laden, that this war was a mistake that would leave us less safe in the end, and so forth.  Of course she would have been smeared at the time.  But how would she look now?

For Obama, the only major candidate to have opposed the war, the "experience" factor seems to be hurting him some, but there's no evidence that he's actually being harmed by having opposed the war at the time.  To the contrary, he gets to point to that as a clear difference between himself and the other candidates.  There's not a lot of traction out there for a message of "Obama isn't tough enough to be President, he even voted against the Iraq war!"

I said it in your last diary and I'll say it again, you are making a huge mistake in making the war vote part of your case for Hillary.  Even I, someone who likes Hillary just fine, am repulsed by that argument.  It's not persuasive in the least and it ends up distracting from all the other points you make.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

Nobody cared what Obama had to say about the war. His speech was a campaign speech delivered while he was runnning for reelection to the statehouse in Illinois in an ultra-liberal district surrounding the University of Chicago. His speech, like all political speeches, was politically motivated.

Of course, when he arrived at the US Senate two years later, he promptly flip-flopped and voted for continuing the Republican war at every opportunity.

In contrast, Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the Bush war and foreign policy. See the Rumsfeld video I posted. Note that Rumsfeld had decided to avoid that day of testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee until a Clinton public letter the day before forced him to appear.

In contrast, Clinton has made three trips to Iraq, including meetings with the Iraqi government, commanders in the field.

In contrast, Clinton has pressured the Republican administration to allow the Pentagon to do redeployment planning...an effort undertaken as a result of private urging from Penatagon generals.

In contrast, Clinton has pressured the Republican administration to clarify their position on instituting a draft following the War Czar's recent statements.

In contrast, Clinton has filed legislation to deauthorize the ongoing military operations in Iraq (the Clinton-Byrd bill) -- a bill that is likely to get prominent play when the Senate reconvenes in September.

One of the reasons that Clinton is the front-runner is that she is viewed as the candidate with the experience and leadership to actually get us out of Iraq in a timely, but sensible manner.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

First, you would make a far better case if you would focus on Hillary's ongoing criticism of the war effort, rather than trying to bring up the initial vote as some sort of strength.  I'm telling you for your own good, that sort of argument turns off the vast majority of the people you might hope to persuade here.

Second, I think it's a bit silly to pretend that Obama's stance on the war had no political risks.  Surely he knew in 2002 that he hoped to run for statewide office as soon as two years later.  Had the Iraq war turned out to be some sort of cakewalk - the scenario Democrats like Edwards and Hillary Clinton feared - anyone who opposed the war was sure to be discredited and a complete non-starter for federal office.

Third, before you characterize Obama's Senate record as "voting to continue the Republican war at every opportunity," you really ought to think a little bit more, considering the notable lack of daylight between Clinton's and Obama's voting records on the issues.  Or do you really want to go on record as claiming that Hillary, too, has "voted to continue the Republican war at every opportunity"?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 1)

LOL. No, Here's the real kicker;

"I want to move away from issues and ideology"

I must have missed THAT Diary because I have never read any Diary that talks about this. It's all polls. Can someone post a link to a Pro Hillary Diary that talks about her position on the "issues" ?  

PLEASE?


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:24:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 4)

Issues:

Pro Universal health care.

Pro Education and chilhood development programs.

Pro alternative energy and investment in green technology.

Pro civil rights, for minorities, women, and gays.

Pro affirmative action.

Pro choice.

Pro implementation of 9/11 Commission recomendation.

Pro strong military.

Pro diplomacy.

Will appoint moderate to liberal Justices; believes the Court needs some voices from the world of politics and or the real world.

Fiscally responsible, favors balanced budgets and pay as you go.

Pro-growth, both in business and jobs.

Hillary has always been a solid, middle of the road, Democrat. Probably a bit more liberal than I am, but she's pragmatic enough to govern effectively. I like that she frames progressive values as mainstream, middle-class issues.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (3.00 / 1)

Don't just pop down a list. What are her PLANS ? .

BTW:

I don't think you have a clue what progressives are because your putting that word where it doesn't belong. Hillary wouldn't know what a Progresive was either if they broke into her New York office and redecorated it with pink ribbon to symbolize the web of lies she's been weaving. I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about do you?

LOL

Please, stop using the word Progressive. You know not what you speak.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

here's the problem with that... (none / 0)

progressive is becoming universally used by democrats but there is no commonly-accepted definition for it.  ask a conservative what conservatives believe and they will rattle off, "lower taxes, smaller government, family values" and probably one or two more bullet points that i can't remember.  there is no bumper sticker definition for progressives, which opens up the term to use (and misuse) by all comers.  more importantly, this makes it almost elitist, a term that confuses the electorate because of the competing definitions/usages.

i say this for a reason.  we use self-identification in our survey work.  whenever i get back something where someone self-identifies as a progressive, i immediately put them in the volunteer recruitment folder because they must be an activist.  very, very rarely has a regular voter identified themself that way.  progressive (to me) is code for "i pay attention to politics and want to influence it's outcome."  that's someone i want working on my campaign...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

what year? because you once again are talking out of both sides of your mouth. you use her time as a first lady when convenient, and equally ignore it when convenient too. and let's be clear- what do the american people think they are getting? Oh, I know you don't care what they think so long as you use their ingorance to vote for her. Because she's solidly for women's issues although many of the issues most vital to women aren't middle of the road considerations.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:35:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro Hillary Diaries that speak to the issues (3.00 / 5)

Here are two good examples which are Pro Hillary Diaries speaking about the issues.  There are many other examples. You must not have looked too hard.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8 /16/105453/068

http://bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?di aryId=1528

Part of the problem is that nobody wants to talk about the issues, her critics are too busy commenting on her hair style, or how "shrill" her voice is, or whether she should show cleavage or not.

Senator Clinton has a very good record on the issues.


by gradysdad on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:55:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro Hillary Diaries that speak to the issues (none / 0)

Those are red herrings. Her netroots critics aren't harping on any of that crap. They criticize her centrism and hawkishness. If you want to go on a Dittohead board and use those arguments be my guest.
by anevarez on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro Hillary Diaries that speak to the issues (none / 0)

You know, here we go again.  I looked it up, and you just showed up on this site a week ago.  Now you are telling a poster who has been around here for quite some time to go to some dittohead board?   That is some strong tobak.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro Hillary Diaries that speak to the issues (none / 0)

You took that the wrong way. I was only implying that a right wing board is the appropriate place to lash out at the critics of her hair, cleavage, "shrill" voice, etc, because those arguments are not coming from the left. It was an issue of audience, and I was not trying to imply any authority.
by anevarez on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro Hillary Diaries that speak to the issues (3.00 / 1)

So, how would you know that?  You have been here but one week.   Many posters have indeed commented on her "shrill" voice, her looks, etc.    Since you were not here you just have to take my word for it, but it is indeed something that has been observed on this site, which is why the poster you responded to mentioned it in the first place.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro Hillary Diaries that speak to the issues (none / 0)

Then for that I apologize. Since those arguments are right wing talking points I assumed they were drawn from right wing talk shows or perhaps even the MSM. When I posted that I was referring to the left as a whole, not the posters on this site in particular, and of course didn't realize that those arguments had been made on this board.

I would like to point out, however, that a search of the site for this year finds just 4 uses of the word shrill, 6 uses of the word cleavage, and 17 uses of the word hair, none of which refer to Hillary. The hair ones were particularly interesting, as they included references to Edwards (of course), Dodd, Obama, Romney, and even BILL Clinton, but no Hillary. I even tried searching "her voice" but to no avail.

Could you help a noob out and show me some of the instances where posters on this site argued over Hillary Clinton's hair, shrill voice, or cleavage? Then I can see the error of my noob ways.
by anevarez on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Second time you've said this (none / 0)

It's absurd that a former governor's wife, former First Lady, senator, and presidential candidate - would enter the race talking about her abilities to change the country - but offering FEW, if any, SPECIFIC plans and solutions!
Instead - she went the easy route - embedding herself with Rupert Murdoch - ensuring positive media coverage for herself and negative coverage for Edwards, the candidate the Repubs fear the most - while Hillary blows off the damages of media consolidation!
I. DO. NOT. TRUST. HILLARY.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Americans like hawks (3.00 / 1)

Who was the last dove elected?


by dpANDREWS on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Americans like hawks (none / 0)

if americans like hawks, then republicans win.  no one believes that hillary is or can project as a greater hawk than thompson, romney, giuliani or mccain...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:55:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think it will be a contest (none / 0)

Of who is the bigger hawk.

I think it is a threshold that a candidate has to cross to be considered.  

I don't think Americans thought of Kerry (or Gore for that matter) as a Dove.  Kerry talked of his experience in 'Nam and made it clear he wanted to capture or kill terrorists.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:57:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Americans like hawks (none / 0)

Americans also like sanity in a candidate. At the moment the republicans are incapable to convince people they're hawks without seeming to suffer from a guano improved reality view.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, i'm too close to things to make that... (none / 0)

judgment.  i have to have data on what voters think before i know whether republicans can convince the electorate they are sane.  i've been fooled by that one before...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Americans like hawks (none / 0)

dp--Right.  Presidents govern from the center.  At least the successful ones do.  


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Americans overwhelming supported the way (none / 0)

Americans don't like "doves" as President.

So she her vote is a good thing.  It puts her with the hawks and it puts her with the majority of Americans who supported it then, and have soured on it, as it has been bungled by Bush and Rove.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:55:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The way? I meant the war. (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (3.00 / 2)

She has solidified herself as a Commander-In-Chief, compared to Obama and Edwards.


by American1989 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:26:09 AM EST

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (none / 0)

She has solidified herself as Bush/Cheney Light is what she has done.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:48:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (3.00 / 1)

You probably don't want to walk down that road.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (none / 0)

In a still almost free society peo are allowed to say what they want. Next you will be telling us we shouldn't talk about her because she's a woman.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (none / 0)

I didn't read it as forbidding something, but more as friendly advice. Casting her like that is a losing strategy, It won't help as everybody can see it's a silly branding exercise. All it does is galvanize her supporters.

You can go down that road, but it's counterproductive.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:43:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (none / 0)

Thanks. It was meant as friendly advice. Just trying to tone down the rhetoric as best I can.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:02:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (3.00 / 1)

And reading Obama's piece in the foriegn affairs he's just as much a hawk as she is. Maybe more. For somebody casting himself as the change candidate who won't make the same mistakes that the rest made, he's acting awfully simular to them nowadays.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i think he is a hawk, about al-qaeda... (none / 0)

and he's certainly determined to upset the conventional wisdom apple cart and take us out of this cold-war era thinking.  that's change to me...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i think he is a hawk, about al-qaeda... (none / 0)

"Change" for the worse, if he has a say in it.  I don't consider Afghanistan AND Pakistan our REAL battlegrounds.  That seems like expanding the battlefield instead of narrowing it down.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm completely dumbfounded... (none / 0)

al-qaeda isn't the enemy?  we have some other enemy?  i don't know what to say besides, wow...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm completely dumbfounded... (none / 0)

Al Quaida is also present in Syria, Saudi Arabia, even in European countries.     We can't just expand our battlefield to anywhere some Al-Quaida cells are present.   That is the "wow" factor.   Of course, since it was Obama who made such hawkish statements, it has to be defended and molded to fit.  If it had come out of Clinton's mouth, it would have been bashed to the hilt.   Such is the duplicitious nature of many Obama supporters on this site.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

al-qaeda is a broadly distributed network... (none / 0)

but that's not the reason that you focus on afghanistan and pakistan.  you focus on that quadrant of the world because that's where bin laden and al-zawahiri are at.  al-qaeda has all the characteristics of a messianic movement, and the first thing you do to destroy a messianic movement is to cut off its head.  we haven't done that, and we've suffered the consequences for it.

if hillary had any inkling of going after al-qaeda or what this means to changing our force structure and military doctrine in the 21st century, i'd support her despite my belief that the dynastic character of her candidacy is dangerous for the country.  THIS IS THE REASON I SUPPORT OBAMA, i've known (and talked to him) about these views for awhile.  i'll try to finish up my diary about this before the dnc summit...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: al-qaeda is a broadly distributed network... (none / 0)

I think it is very dangerous for us to expand our battlefield to Pakistan (and state that we would go after Bin-Ladin whether Pakistan liked it or not) when an operation of that magnitude would require ground troops and would be subject to heavy loss of life due to the terrain and nature of opponents we are dealing with.   This fantasy that we would obtain "intelligence" (how well did our intelligence work last time) and then carpet bomb targets from high altitudes is ridiculous. The rocky terrain makes such an endeavor impossible, leaving only heavy ground troop engagement, which is impossible for me to support at this point.   I could not disagree more with you about the "messianic" nature of the movement, and that killing Bin Ladin would have the effect of "cutting off the snake's head."   Al-Quaida is not dependent on Bin-Ladin, in fact killing him at this point would get even more young people into the fold due to the martyrization of the man.  

Do as you please, but I am not really that fond to discuss these types of things with an obvious operative (with a clear agenda,) when almost the entire  blogging universe here is made up of regular people from all walks of life with honest, heartfelt opinions.   Since you are obviously connected with the campaign I seriously wonder if many things you write are what you truly believe in.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

george, we all know that you go to great lengths.. (none / 0)

to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you, but i'm not connected to any presidential campaign directly.  hillary was the last presidential to offer me a job, and we got stuck on money (which, btw, i have no problem with).  i have done work for some of the campaign's vendors (not saying much, since most of the major vendors are connected to one presidential campaign or another), and i don't make a secret of that.

as for the rest of your conclusions, they are, as usual, wrong.  i don't write under my name so that i can say what i think and fulfill the exact aspects of any ndas i'm under.

and, of course, your ideas about what taking the battle to al-qaeda is seriously flawed.  air power is virtually useless in this type of warfare -- as is the massing of troops, for the most part.  i don't really care if you agree or disagree about the nature of al-qaeda.  but since you seem to need full disclosure, i've taught this particular subject at the ndu.  i won't apologize for challenging conventional wisdom...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I think "we" know fully well that it is you who writes very dismissive about others who don't share your opinion.  Be that as it may, the fact remains that your claim that not a single person out of THOUSANDS would answer in the affirmative when it comes to talking about a "positive message" shows your mettle.  I would say it borders on the heavily delusional.

 Anyway, you have offered no rebuttal of my point that heavily mountainous terrain could potentially lead to heavy troop losses just to "get Bin-Ladin" with the strong possibility that our intelligence was flawed to begin with, and/or Bin-Ladin able to flee to another undisclosed location with us able to claim the killing of only a few "middle managers."   Is it worth the risk to get Bin Ladin?  Most would say "No."  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: who shares *my* opinions??? (none / 0)

once again, george, you are just off the wall.

and, of course, i'm sorry that VOTERS don't share your views.  but that's not my problem.

it's absurd for me to try to rebutt something with which i disagree.  you created the strawman about a massive invasion of the mountains, i saw no need to counter a bogus argument.  going after bin laden does not require such an invasion...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: al-qaeda is a broadly distributed network... (none / 0)

I'm interested in your view on this subject. Personally I'm reminded somewhat of the reformation by al-qaeda. There are some parallels in the social dynamics at play. Of course any real comparison is limited...


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i know i need to write about this... (none / 0)

and i will, as soon as i have a free moment...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Can (none / 0)

Obama wanting to meet with Castro or Chavez is a good idea. But any favorable impression this idea made on me was completely wiped off by the Pakistan reference in the foreign policy speech. It seemed that Obama, after facing criticism for Castro/Chavez comments, decided that he had to prove that he wasn't weak on national security. While our current policy on Pakistan is FAR from ideal, the idea of unilateral intervention in Pakistan is fatally flawed. I realize that the comment came in a larger context but even the suggestion, IMHO, is a sign of naiveté.


scriberal
by scriberal on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

here's where you lost me (3.00 / 3)

"She has steadfastly refused to attack fellow Democrats, instead responding with a call for party unity, even when attacked."

Her team has been dishing dirt on Obama and Edwards all year. Of course she's not going to deliver the attacks herself, because she's the front-runner. But let's not kid ourselves that the Clinton campaign is above going negative on her rivals.

Other than that, good diary. She's certainly got good message discipline, I will say that for her.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:26:11 AM EST

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

I didn't mention that in my post below, but you do point out how she does it through subordinates. She never attacks directly. Just through the grapevine. Classic front runner approach.

OT: One of the frustrating things about coming to this mydd at this point is that the arguments are so obviously based on assuming (whether intentional or not) that the readers are political novices. How else to process some of these strategic arguments other than they assume the audience doesn't know that the "case" is actually playing on political and process ignorance?

That Clinton is running as likeable or saying "I am like other Democrats", for example, is supposed to obscure our ability ask "but is she our best choice" given the substance of her position on issues, her leadership and several other factors not yet discussed. Instead, we are offered up process diaries about how she is winning the primary race or when discussing the general things such as women voters will make the difference.

Someone the other day ask this question succintly- "we have heard this before. This isn't the first democrat who claims they will win by bringing new voters. But thats not what actually often happens. New voters rarely materialize. How will we win with the poll of voters that we know already exist?" Or something like that. I thought that was the best question I had seen in a while. I kept coming back looking for an answer- didn't see one as I remember that really ever answered the toughness of the question.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:47:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

There is just no reason for her to attack Obama or Edwards or any other opponent at this point in the race. It is to her benefit to simply make it a "Clinton vs. 'the Right Wing'" narrative.

Since she attacked Obama on the foreign policy front, the entire campaign has been defined by what Obama has been saying or doing. He has been driving the news coverage for the past couple of weeks. While it hasn't always been friendly, this is a great development for his campaign and something that the Clinton people had to have been hoping wouldn't happen.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:32:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (3.00 / 2)

The Clinton campaign has to be thrilled that the current frame is questioning whether Obama is too inexperienced and naive on foreign policy.

Until he crossed the "commander-in-chief" threshold, Obama cannot be elected President.

As long as his inexperience and naivete are being questioned, he hasn't (and can't) cross the threshold. It is a potentially fatal hurdle for his campaign.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:05:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

It's also a potential opportunity. We'll see how it plays out eventually.


by Korha on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

I think the more it gets discussed, the more the narrative gets beyond "Clinton called Obama inexperienced."

If you actually watched the debate, the first few minutes were spent on whether Obama was experienced enough. However, Obama was then given a chance to respond, and the conversation turned to the actual issue of nuclear weapons and fighting terror. The more that happens, the worse things get for Clinton.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:52:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

Max--I thought that Stephanopolis was wrong to try to destroy Obama by having all the other candidates say he was unfit to be President.  This wasn't a debate it was an execution.  It was terrible for Obama but it was also a terrible moment for the media.  As you know, I am not an Obama supporter but when someone is being mistreated I will say so.  The object was to railroad Obama and it was disgusting for ABC to allow Stephanopolis to do that.

Max you are a good writer you should use those writing skills to address a letter to ABC telling them this was no way to run a debate.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (3.00 / 1)

That's an insightful comment, and I agree with it.

Obama has the spotlight. Now it's up to him to use that spotlight. He has an opening to draw a dramatic difference between himself and Hillary Clinton, if he is able and/or willing to take it.

We'll see.


by Korha on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:04:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (3.00 / 1)

I did not watch the Sunday morning debate, but from what I have read, Obama made statements to the effect that any of the candidates "would end the war"  and he repeated that assertion when it was posed with just Clinton in mind.  From what I have read, Edwards made a similar remark.  I don't see that as drawing a dramatic difference between the candidates, instead it had the effect to blur the differences to basically nothing on the important points.


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

If so, then Hillary Clinton will sweep the nomination. No doubt about it.


by Korha on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (3.00 / 1)

I don't think they're thrilled, nor do I think that the Obama people believe this is a great development. The narrative since the focus has been on him has been that 1. he has mishandled several important foreign policy points, and 2. "does he have the experience?" type stories.

I think these are legitimate questions and I'm glad that the narrative has shifted. We've moved past the Saint Obama phase, wherein he got a free pass as long as he played the semantic game of peddling "hope" and opposing "cynicism."


by arkansasdemocrat on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:28:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

Max--There is no good news for Obama.  He has not made a connection with the American people. Hillary's point and that of John Edwards, is you don't talk hypotheticals when you are a candidate. If the netroots decided the election he would be number 1. However, the American people do and they think Obama is too young and inexperienced to be the Commander in Chief.  Better luck in 2016.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

Good message discipline, for sure...

Still, I hope voters consider much more than the fact that Hillary Clinton's campaign is well-run. The real questions are 1) Who will make the best president? 2) Who is most likely to be win? and 3) Who will be the best for the party?

Let's not lose sight of those critical questions.


by Korha on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:00:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (3.00 / 1)

Many are answering all 3 in the affirmative for Clinton, which is in essence what the problem for Obama and Edwards is.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

Thank-you. Those are pretty much the three issues I weighed in choosing a favorite candidate among the Democrats in the field:

Who will make the best President? Who is most likely to win? Who is best for the party? All three point to Hillary.

BTW, I would just like to add, given the rejection by many here of "political considerations" when politicians make decisions, that two of your three questions are purely political considerations.

Every decision in our goverment involves political calculations. Why? Because our founding fathers made "political calculations" an inherent factor when they designed a representative democracy, forcing all government leaders to keep an eye on the next election and the sentiment of the people.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

HWC -- Thank you for that link to the video of Clinton in Iowa.  She has the ability to touch people.  I was very moved watching her work the crowds.  I have seen her a couple of times in person.  She is amazing.  


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

Carville said it best in a fabulous speech he gave at UVa last fall when he described both Clinton and Obama as "larger than life" personalities. They walk into a room and temperature increases.

When the campaign season started, I didn't know how Hillary would do on the campaign trail. Not being a New Yorker, I was like most of the country in not having really seen her campaign style.

I watched her first town hall meeting on C-SPAN back in February followed up by her speech to the AIFF firefighter's union and quickly saw a very skilled campaigner with the ability to connect to the audience.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's where you lost me (none / 0)

HWC - When I got to meet her I was so moved.  I didn't start out being a Clinton supporter.  Originally I was for Edwards but I like her because her campaign is so positive.  I believe this is a can-do country and that she can do whatever is needed to make us believe again.  Thank you for all your posts.  


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hillary's an incredibly strong campaigner... (none / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 3)

I'm sleepy and tired, but I'll go down your list as best I can.

a) Clinton's problems are not because she is a woman. That's the argument used by others to avoid her real problems. Her problem is that she had 15 years of baggage. I believe she could  overcome the woman thing is all the other stars were alligned, but the problem is that when looking at all the other stars, issues, character, electoral maps, etc, she's not the best choice.

b) It's interesting that you argue gender is a problem for her, but others argue this is a strength for her when convenient. Which is it? Will it hurt or help her? When challenged regarding the electability issue, there are those amongst her supporters here who claim that she will bring so many women to the table that she will overcome her structural (unfav) ratings for the general.  I suppose you wll argue both. She faces problems as a woman, but other women will rally behind her.  And my response to that is that is which will be more important in the general race? Where are all these extra women going to come from?

c) Of course she's arguing "I am like other Democrats." She loses the minute people realize that's not true. Afterall, again, she loses the minute people think of the 15 years of baggage, the bad side of it, that she brings to table due to her last name. It also means real questions about her record can be obscured under this general approach.  She's the only one who has anything to gain by pretending that all Democrats are a like. She loses when people say pay attention to her healthcare proposals. Sound bites are nice. Claiming you will one day in some distant galaxy propose comprehensive plans are nice. Is she proposing a full plan? No. Just on that isue alone she's not like Edwards or Obama. There are others. These differences matter.

d) By to the women thing- that will hurt you this approach of hers as much as it helps. If she uses gender as a strenght by claiming more women, it will and can have the opposite effect of putting off as many as it brings foreward. The question is- is this a gamble the party wants to take? Remember its not just Clinton or Obama or Edwards- it's the party. What do all Democrats want for the party? Two weeks now- nothing much about vision or party. I await george's post, and I hope he will adddress this rather than process as your post does.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:37:52 AM EST

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 2)

It's interesting that you argue gender is a problem for her, but others argue this is a strength for her when convenient. Which is it?

Both. Being the first credible woman candidate has placed signficant hurdles in her path as I have outlined.

Specifically because she has overcome those hurdles, she is an exceptionally strong candidate and will enjoy advantages with women voters that we have never seen before. Overcoming those hurdles creates a bond and tremendous respect, perhaps best encapsulated in the pop jargon, "You go, girl!"

Don't take my word for it. See any account of Clinton on the campaign trail and the way women respond to her. Here is an example - a video report from the Washington Post on Clinton at the Iowa State Fair:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/video/2007/08/16/VI2007081602667.ht ml


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:48:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

Your analyis is spot on.  I find your honesty about AUMF and the war funding bill refreshing.  I never thought the war was a good idea, but I always understood her vote. Neither Obama or Hillary wanted to vote against funding but the anti-war activists would have gone crazy of they voted for it. For my part, as a woman, it's extremely exciting to have the opportunity to support a woman like Hillary to be our next president.  I find it disheartening to see so many women in the netroots dismiss the significance of this opportunity.  However, as you say, women outside of the netroots get it.  


by bookgrl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 1)

You find, as  Democrat (not a Hillary supporter), it refreshing to hear that a Democrat voted for the war to win in 2008 despite the death toll in american lives and the pain its caused this country? I mean- let's ignore the Iraqis for a second- but are you serious? As I have said of both the trade issue and the lobby issue- you better hope the rank and file remains ignorant of these sorts of argument and that Clinton would never be crazy enough to emphasize them.  Even as process position, again ignoring the moral consequences, they are horrible for your candidate.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:06:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 3)

If the moral consequences of the vote are the way you describe are, then they are for your candidate as well, actually even infinitely more so, which makes it surprising you would actually support one of the CO-SPONSORS of the AUMF.    If your post has any logic, then you better hope that nobody talks about Edwards' role in all of this, as being a CO-SPONSOR is a very heightened involvement, in fact, meant to pave the way for other reluctant Senators to jump on board.  If you don't argue the same way for Edwards (what, because Edwards "apologized" that makes it any better?  Preposterous.) then you are just being hypocritical.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:50:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards did not "just" apologize (none / 0)

He also cast a very tough vote against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill. That was well before Bush's approval was in the toilet, well before the majority of Americans turned against the war. Edwards got a lot of flack for that vote, but he said that we can't keep giving Bush a blank check without a change in strategy in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Hillary kept voting for every Iraq War funding bill Bush wanted.

Second, Edwards co-sponsored the AUMF that specified  Iraq. As bad as that was, we would have been in much worse shape if the alternate bill (can't remember the co-sponsors, I think Daschle was one) had passed, because that authorized the use of military force in "the region."

If that had passed, we might have troops in Iran and Syria right now.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards did not "just" apologize (3.00 / 2)

"Second, Edwards co-sponsored the AUMF that specified  Iraq. As bad as that was, we would have been in much worse shape if the alternate bill (can't remember the co-sponsors, I think Daschle was one) had passed, because that authorized the use of military force in "the region."

If that had passed, we might have troops in Iran and Syria right now."

That is NOT what some of your anti-Hillary brethren here argues.  They argue that the authorization was morally apprehensible, basta.  I agree with you that the AUMF was an attempt at curbing Bush's authority and making him concede to diplomacy, UN involvement, inspectors, etc.  since a "free pass" AUMF already existed and had enough votes for passage.   Besides, Bush would have gone ahead with whatever it is he wanted to do in Iraq, with or without Congress approval, regardless.  

I am responding to the shady argument that Clinton's AUMF vote was morally wrong, which I reject based on the same reasoning you brought up.  This second AUMF was designed to reign the guy in, give him LESS authority than the first AUMF was about to do already.   But, if you are an Edwards fan and you are going to (falsely, IMO) argue that the AUMF vote was morally wrong, then you have to be prepared to defend Edwards CO-SPONSORSHIP of said bill, a much higher involvement in its crafting, passage, roping your parties' votes in, etc.    


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:45:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards did not "just" apologize (none / 0)

we aren't arguing anything of the sort. we are arguing that states like clinton made the right vote because clinton wanted to be president is morally reprehensible. Nice try to spin this, but its possible for someone to have had a mistake on teh vote, even due to moral pressures and not hav e done something morally reprehensible in terms of making a mistake. BUT, to say as HWC does that it was the right vote directly because Clinton wanted to be president is morally reprehnsible. It's the details, stupid!


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:26:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards did not "just" apologize (3.00 / 2)

It is NOT just the "vote," but an actual CO-SPONSORSHIP we are talking here.  That is major involvement.  The way you argue, Edwards should be the LAST candidate you would be supporting here.  It makes your argument biased and illogical.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:19:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards did not "just" apologize (3.00 / 3)

Desmoinesdem at least understands nuances, something you fail to do.  She rightly points out that ANOTHER AUMF was already before Congress, one that gave Bush carte blanche, which already had enough votes for passage.  This competing AUMF was an attempt at stopping a free-for-all, an attempt to give diplomacy a chance, insure that Bush allowed inspectors back into Iraq who would be able to report back to us about WMD's, get the UN involved in the situation.   In the end it turned out that Bush did what he wanted anyway, regardless, and would have gone ahead with even if Congress had not given him authorization.  But, this was an attempt at throwing some buffers into the works.    


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards did not "just" apologize (none / 0)

Incidentallly I see what you are doing here . it's what you must do. Blur the lines about what I am saying and why I am saying it. You know perfectly well that what your boy HWC is saying is kind of fucked up. SO by all mean blur those lines because the actual statement as stated my him is indefensible. Ambition as the basis for war.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:28:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards did not "just" apologize (3.00 / 2)

Once again, you are wrong.  

The AUMF was not a vote FOR war.  How often does it have to be said before it sinks in?  That is also not what hwc stated.  The choice was to basically protest the whole thing and remove yourself from the process (let Bush do what he wants, who cares anyway, he will do as he pleases, no matter what I say) or attempt to reign the gung-ho "let's go an nuke them all" in with caveats.  Yes, in the end it was a vote to authorize action, but with the explicit promise that military action was to be used as a very last resort.  

And, what is is with this "your boy" crap?  You don't even pretend to be reasonable with stuff like that, so I don't even know why I bother with you.


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:29:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

arguing that your candidate was too stupid... (none / 0)

to see that she was voting to invade iraq may not be your best strategy.  if you didn't realize that she understood that we were going to war with iraq -- without just cause, without right authority, without any sense of proportionality -- she did...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: arguing that your candidate was too stupid... (3.00 / 1)

I am bored now with this circular argumentation.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:19:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we'll see if you stop using this canard... (none / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

They aren't teh way I described. They are the way that your front page advocate described. I am not hte one claiming that the voted the way they did solely to gain favor for 2008. That's your boy making that claim.  Y'all are spinnning so much you seem to be confusing what arguments rae being made by whom.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I understood her vote (none / 0)

and Kerry's vote, and Edwards' vote, and Dodd's vote, and Biden's vote. At the time I felt it was the wrong vote, and I viewed it as a strike against Kerry and Edwards, but it was not a deal-breaker for me because I understood the political realities of 2002.

But hwc is making a virtue of this wrong vote, which is a very different thing.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:08:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (3.00 / 4)

At the time I felt it was the wrong vote, and I viewed it as a strike against Kerry and Edwards, but it was not a deal-breaker for me because I understood the political realities of 2002.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not offering an opinion, one way or another on the merits of the vote itself. I mean, it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. But, Monday morning QB'ing is easy.

I've never understood why Democrats single out Clinton on this issue. Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd all cast the same vote. Hell, Edwards co-sponsored the war bill. Mea culpas and apologies don't change anything. They are just rhetoric. I don't hold the vote against any of them. But, if you want to do so, it only seems logical to hold it against them all.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

no one is singling her out. This your own myopic view. Have you seen the attacks on edwards on this? or obama? I have because i have read them.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (3.00 / 2)

Laughable.  Edwards has received a mea culpa on this, even though he, more than any of the candidate, has the most involvement in passage of the AUMF.   All he had to utter was "I'm sorry" and it was wiped clean.  Most people don't realize to what extent a CO-SPONSOR is involved in a bill like that, how much MORE responsibility comes with that than someone who just votes Yay or Nay.  You better hope that this never is discussed fully, as Edwards would be in worse shape than he is.   If you are talking morals, Edwards' involvement was much stronger than Clinton's.  His involvement was meant to send a signal to other Democrats that it is ok to vote for the AUMF, rope reluctant Senators in.


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:55:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

Right- mea culpa because well- you know he actually said I was wrong rather than as HWC does claim the vote to send American soldiers to their death was right because Clinton wanted to be President. All the morals of a turd in that sort of reasoning.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (3.00 / 2)

"rather than as HWC does claim the vote to send American soldiers to their death..."

I am very curious to find out HOW in the world you can support Edwards, since the bill to "send American soliders to their death" was not just voted on by him in the affirmative but actually CO-SPONSORED.   An "apology" is all it took for you?  With all these deaths?  For a CO-SPONSORING of the bill that sent countless thousands of Americans and Iraqis to their deaths?   Do you even KNOW the difference between voting for or against a bill and actually underwriting a bill with a CO-SPONSORSHIP?  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

and again the shell game- what did hwc say- he said she voted for it to be president, that's the discussion. you can pretend that's not the discussion all you want. and you are simply going to get me each time to post- here's the question- she voted for it to be president?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

Edwards said that he made a mistake--Clinton still seems to believe that voting for the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do.  She may appear tough to Republican pundits, but I want someone who is right, not strong and wrong.


by msrpotus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:24:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (3.00 / 1)

She said I regret giving Bush the authority.


by bookgrl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

provide the link. you avoid hard questions.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:27:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

She said it today in the debate.  I don't have a link.  She's used the word "regret" in terms of trusting Bush with the AUMF before.


by bookgrl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:30:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

What does regret mean. Does that mean she see her decision making as a mistake? Yes or no.  Would she agree with HWC as you do along this thread that it was justified because she wants to be President in 2008?  Yes or no.  Like I said on multiple other occasions, this is general character issue.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

"Does that mean she see her decision making as a mistake? Yes or no."

Yes. Read yesterday's debate transcript. Do a text search for "regret" if you want.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

"I've never understood why Democrats single out Clinton on this issue."

I was betrayed by my party. They lost their spine. She, and all of them, knew it was wrong, and voted for the god damn war anyway. I will never understand. And I will probably never forgive.  


by aiko on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:46:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (none / 0)

HWC--the more I read these posts the clearer it becomes that these people are not Democrats.  They are just right wingers who come in here to try to destroy our strongest candidate. Why, because they can't beat her.  The Republican talking point of the day.  Hillary voted for the war so she could become President.  It is totally discusting but the fact that so many of them are saying it means that the right wingers have nothing else.  Where is all the Obama love today? I guess they have decided to go straight for the jugular instead.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understood her vote (3.00 / 1)

He's doing worse. He's saying it was  virtue because despite the damage that came about from it, it was a good thing because it means Clinton can be President. The President of the US is suppsoe to be countries moral leadership in terms of doing the right thing in public policy even when its a losing battle. That's the theory of leadership that's real leadership at least. Not the kind where you go into a battle certain of a win, but where you are certain about your convictions.

I think they all made poor judgements, and they let the political pressures influence them too much at the time, and it was partially crass, but to turn this into a virtue- well, down is up, black is white.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:19:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

I find it disheartening to see so many women in the netroots dismiss the significance of this opportunity.

Nobody ever accused the far left wing of the Democratic party of being particularly reality-based!

The significance of Clinton's candidacy in historic terms is overwhelming. She will be an (important) chapter in the American history books forever. BTW, I also believe that electing a woman will have an immediate positive impact in how the United States is viewed in the world. People need to keep in mind that many of our allies view not electing women as a example of how the United States is behind the times.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:24:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

So everyone on blogs are the far left because they question what Clinton says? Interesting.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

"I also believe that electing a woman will have an immediate positive impact in how the United States is viewed in the world. People need to keep in mind that many of our allies view not electing women as a example of how the United States is behind the times."

My husband didn't even consider other candidates for this very reason.


by bookgrl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:28:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

wow! as I said some of the arguments being made here. your husband is voting for her because she is a woman? this is pure identity politics. and its really starting to scare me.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:31:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

He doesn't identify her because she's a woman so I don't think so.  I said he didn't consider others because of that, NOT that that was the only reason he is for Clinton.  He liked Bill.  He likes Hillary's position, and how her gender would effect how we were viewed by the rest of the world sealed the deal for him.


by bookgrl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

You are just rephrasing what I said.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 3)

No she isn't, she said that the effects and results of electing a woman was amongst the reasons why he was considering voting for Hillary.

If it is just one reason amongst many it's far from "pure".

And if it the choice is result orientated, namely an positive impact in the USA's world approval rating, it can't be called "Identity politics" either. He's then simply chosing a candidate that helps realize his own preferences and ideals. In this case a better liked america.

Identitiy politics require that people vote for a person regardless of their actions and results. In this case, that isn't the case.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

okay- if you say so. look spin spin away. this is getting boring to read you parse identity politics as not identity politics but when asked why peo will vote for her- we are told its because of the 'excitement' of 'you go girl' and her being a woman. whatever.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

Actually all I personally ever said about that subject is that those comments temper her unfavorable rating.

As for spin, You complain about how people always start getting personal with you. When you claim that somebody is spinning, you are effectively telling them that they are lying. That is quite insulting as well. I simply give you my opinion about how I see the dynamic. We can have different opinions about that without claiming that somebody is dishonest. I don't think that sort of comment is particular helpful.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what allies? (none / 0)

i travel significantly, and people rarely seem to keep their attitudes about american politics to themselves.  i have never heard anyone say, you americans are so backward -- you can't even elect a woman!  i find your comment outside my own experience.

what i have heard europeans say is that they hope we elect hillary because they like stability and hillary represents continuity to the past.  they understand that she doesn't represent change, and they are very happy about that.

they other thing i hear abroad, and i need to diary this, is what it means in the war on the terror network.

foreigners like the fact that we pass our presidency back and forth between two families.  they are very comfortable with the status quo...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:40:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what allies? (3.00 / 3)

Actually as Europeans go I have trouble reconciling some of your experiences with mine. I've only lived in western Europe so I'll admit that my knowledge of how people perceive the US in eastern Europe could be less then yours.

A sizeable minority I've met actually thinks that Hillary and Obama won't stand a chance to get elected because of her gender and his skin color. The rest simply has a lot of doubts.

Stability is important here, and a lot of Hillary's popularity in Europe is because she does represent change to them, a change back to the policies of her husband who still is loved by the vast majority.

It's also important to note that Hillary is a known factor to a lot of them, and even though she is identified mostly with the policies of her husband, she made a good impression in her own right as well.

Her popularity has little to do with passing the presidency back and forth between two families, Bush has always been unpopular from the start. His approval rating in western Europe always have been disastrous and is currently in the single digits in most western countries. Gore and Kerry both had far better numbers in Europe then they had the US. There was some tepid support for Bush under a certain segment of diplomats I've met but that support cooled really quickly. I can't say I've met a lot of people who were content with the status quo. American involvement is generally poisonous and amongst the people Bush is generally regarded as worse then most dictators. I don't recognize anything of that part of your comment.

It's also important to note that the people who have heard about Obama are very open to him. He's lesser known and would have to work harder to entrench his positives But his election would also be a net plus.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:36:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what allies? (none / 0)

that's interesting.  i'm not sure it's that different.  i would say i completely missed the change (meaning change == not bush) angle because i hear the stability or continuity thing.  i agree about the known factor.  bush was popular (or a known quantity) in china when i was there.  gore was not, and the people i talked to preferred bush.

i was completely unaware that people are open to obama.  in my experience, the preference for another clinton is very strong, for the reasons you mention...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:35:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what allies? (none / 0)

I've got no experience with china so I'll take you on your word. As for Obama, He's nowhere near the popularity that Hillary enjoys and not likely to rival that. But my conversations make me believe that if his name ID improves he could be a solid second in popular support.

He's certainly creating some interest in the right corners.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what allies? (none / 0)

that will be good for the future...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what allies? (none / 0)

bored--You must have different conversations when you go abroad then I do.  What surprises people in the countries I visit is why we are the only country that doesn't have healthcare for all its people.  They are shocked to find that you can go bankrupt in this country because you were unfortunate enough to become ill.    


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:31:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

You are confused. I am not trying to be an ass. I mean I am one. but honestly here I am trying to "get" what you think will happen thats going to transform politics. You seem to be making an identity politics argument. More women will vote for her because she's a woman.  I just think some of your posts read like the thinkings of a political novice.

This part is especially, well, engaging in wishful thinking:

"Specifically because she has overcome those hurdles, she is an exceptionally strong candidate and will enjoy advantages with women voters that we have never seen before."

First, it can be just as easily argued, if we are going to engage in speculation,t hat more men will not vote for her if she over emphasizes gender.  But, that's just speculation.

What's not speculation- your claim that she will yield more voters than the pool of voters that we know exist now. Honestly, this is the Obama argument with regard to African Americans. It ignores idealogical divides among other problems. It also ignores voting patterns and behaviors. It ignores circumstance.

I worked as a poll monitor in 2003 and 2006. Voting patterns are what they are. Poor people vote less for example because they are working. People of color vote in the percentage they do because of whatever reason.

One person, Clinton or Obama, aren't going to change this. Yet, each camp depends on this argument. In Clinton's case, to overcome the very real concersn out there about her negatives. Rather than responding to this structural number, you offer us what? Promises of new voters dancing in our heads and claims that Clinton will win because why? Well because Clinton is Clinton.

I've been in politics too long for this. How is she going to convince people in Ohio that she's different from the GOP enough on trade when to blunt her claims of being "with them" the Republicans can point out that she supports free trade? They dont' need to win on these issues- they simply need to point out as her unfavorables suggests that voters concerns are justified, even if they aren't when compared to the GOP. That's just one issue off top of my head that've discussed and not received a real answer to.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

I am so sick of your attitude.  I'm no novice.  Hillary is a good Democat, and, IMO, she's the best prepared fo the job.  I think it's a huge opportunity for women.  They don't have to back Clinton because of it, but I think we should consider it a factor.


by bookgrl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:29:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 1)

Stop using personal shit about "my attitude" as an excuse to avoid the legitimate questions raised. I provided a response with specifics, and all I get from you is this shit about she's great for the job and an assortment of generalities. Why? And nearly every post along this thread by you, by the way, is basically she's great because she's a woman. You even say above your husband is looking at only her because she's a woman. When challenged on actual issues, such as her vote on Iraq, you defend it on grounds that are repugnant to what Democrats stand for. Democrats for the record, and I imagine Clinton would agree with me, don't vote for wars because they want to be President.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:38:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

This diary was about her gender.  You just refuse to see anything positive about Hillary.  I support Hillary for president.  I won't constantly defend myself for that.  I don't as you to defend your support of John Edwards.


by bookgrl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:41:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

When I point out that I voted for her for Senate, and think she's a good Senator overall, that's ignored.

You keep trying to personalize this, but the problem you face is that on the personal, I like Clinton just fine. She's not especially dynamic,b ut I don't require politicians to be dynamic. Especially against this GOP field- except for maybe Huckabee. This isn't about the personal for me.

The problem is that she's not the best choice for Presidential candidate for multiple reasons that I keep outlining, and yes, I bring them up because your responses are inadequate. I can predict most of your, the Clinton supporters responses, at this point. Mostly avoiding the question is what they are good for or spinning negatives as if you are talking to the general public rather than fellow political junkies.

She may win, but the question is how she will win and what they will mean for the party. That'sthe question that is if you are interested in something more than Clinton.

So, yes, this diary is about gender.  That's one of the arguments offered in response quite frankly to Team Clinton's realization that she has high unfavs that have lasted some 15 years now and issues related to down ticket races.

The claim is that it's about how more women will vote because she is a woman. Not her ideas, not her leadership. She's a woman. that's the extent of your arguments really. "Go girl" That sums up how you think you will change voting behavior.

I don't buy the analysis by the way because I have done this for a while - looked at politics. In fact, others who have done this for a while also don't buy it. Hence the reservations behind the scenes.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:56:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 2)

Hillary is a good Democat, and, IMO, she's the best prepared fo the job.  I think it's a huge opportunity for women.

That's pretty much how I see it. Of the candidates in the race, I think she's the best qualified. I admire that she has taken a pounding for 15 years and come on top (she's a total bad ass). And, electing the first woman president would be very cool. I'd like to be part of that. It immediately changes the world for every woman in the United States.

BTW, I feel the same way about electing an African American president. I just don't think Obama is ready. If they knuckle down, work on their political chops, and gain experience, I would probably enthusiastically support Obama or Duval Patrick to succeed Hillary in 2016. I wouldn't support Clinton (or any other candidate, male or female) 2 years removed from a state legislature.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

Choosing to support a candidate based on race or gender is wrong. I say this as someone who is black.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 2)

I'm not supporting Clinton because she's a woman. I'm supporting her because I think she's better than the other candidates in the race.

If I were forced to pick a second choice, it would probably be Biden. I think he's a bit of a blowhard, but I respect his experience. Back in February, I probably would have said Obama as my second choice. But, his inexperience scares me.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:26:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 2)

Obama used to be my number two choice as well, but after seven months on the campaign trail, I have come to question his management. He may have a large heart, but heart is not going to run this country.

He should stay in the Senate. He will be very effective there.


by RJGajadhar on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

clinton has a public official has 7 years of experience. you like others seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth because you are counting as part of experience her position as a wife. certainly a great way to argue gender equality rather than accomplishment in one's own right. look you may win on all of this, but it's kind of sleazy because you will be sending mixed signals that reinforces the worse elements of american life. about what women are and what they should count as accomplishments for suceeding. i know from your other writings here you have no idea what i am talking about,b ut i thought I would try to point it out.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:22:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 1)

Yes, her time as First Lady is part of her experience. No, it's not because she's a woman, it's because she was heavily involved in policy decisions. That's experience. You yourself cited your own time as a "poll watcher" as some sort of election expertise. Is it fair to discount that experience because you weren't Secretary of State?


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:47:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

uhm- right. like is aid above. whatever. in that case - madonna should run for president too because she's been maligned in the public sphere.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

I have a hard time understanding how this was a response to my comment.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

here's the deal. first lady , however capable they are, isn't the same as being elected to office. her status was solely base don that of her husband. indeed, taking this conversation to its usual conclusion, i skipped ahead to point out that what you are trading on is not experience but name id and wha tyou perceive of as her ability to overcome what the GOp threw at her. yet, what did she overcome that's different than madonna if are going to use that argument? i mean on the one policy thing she did do - how did that turn out?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:35:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

We're talking about experience, not name recognition. You didn't skip ahead, you skipped off-topic. Being First Lady brings with it a lot of things: glamor, fame, name recognition, and, relevantly, experience. Hillary was involved in a lot of substantive policy decisions. She was in the thick of it for eight full years. Was she AS involved as the President? No, of course not; no one is. But it was still substantive, hardcore experience with the way the Executive branch works and a crash-course on how to get things done as a president.

Is it fair that she got that experience? I don't really know what that question even means. I guess not, since she wasn't elected -- but on the other hand, she was definitely a part of the Clinton team that put Bill in office, so maybe. But fundamentally it doesn't matter whether it was fair; what matters is that she had the experience and is now a much better candidate as a result.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he'll be ready in 2012... (none / 0)

and after 12 years of republican rule, maybe you'll be ready for it...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 1)

Promises of new voters dancing in our heads

I've made no claims about increased turnout. There may be some, particularly among younger women, but that's not an argument I'd base my case on.

I think Mark Penn has it exactly right. Kerry underperformed viz-a-viz Gore in two key demographics: women and Latinos. Clinton will swing the women and Latino votes our way by several percent based on her own strength. That's a victory, even if nothing else changes from 2004.

I believe the dynamics of the anti-Bush sentiment and overall move towards Democratic issues will actually result in a commanding Clinton win in the general election. I think 300 electoral college votes is likely. Campaigns matter and the Clinton campaign is good.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

where is the evidence (none / 0)

that Clinton would do better than the other candidates among Latinos in the general electorate?

So far all I have seen is evidence that she leads among Latino Democrats, who would presumably vote for any Democratic nominee.

Also, I can't see any of the current Republican crop doing as well among Latinos as Bush did in 2004. Their bigoted rhetoric on immigration is going to kill them.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:57:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

bush isn't on the ballot

you still don't explain how she will receive enough votes. only ho wyou hope that she will without any indicator of how. you have done two diaries now they are a mile wide, inch deep because I have absolutely no idea how you think these things will actually happen. Your argument does depend on growing certain voters that we already have.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, bush isn't on the ballot... (none / 0)

and even republicans represent the not-bush option. it's one of those curiosities,  because if hillary is the democratic nominee (and she will be), this election will be about hillary, not about bush (or the future)...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:40:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, bush isn't on the ballot... (3.00 / 2)

You know if Edwards/Obama won , the election will be about them also , not the future.

I bet you wonder how ridiculous that sounds right , thats how I felt when I read your comment.

A campaign is usually about who is successful in framing messages/choices , the way I read your comment without reading too much to it because you provide no explanation  , is that , you have already conceded the republicans will succeed in being in control  of the framing of the message of the campaign.

Thats a little too defeatist for me. Your standard can easily be applied to Obama/Edwards as well . Based on your attitude we can conclude that the republicans will be successful in making it about Obama's " Inexperience " or Edwards " hair cut and what  it symbolizes " . So they will make it about them not the future.

I tend to have more faith in our candidates and I 'm very optimistic we will win , I hope you feel the same .


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

wrong... (none / 0)

your defense of hillary is noble, but naive.  it's not simply that she's running as a pseudo-incumbent that means that the race will be about her, it's the fact that she is the most polarizing figure in american politics today (george bush is so 2001).  it's that she has the highest negatives we've seen from a non-incumbent in the history of modern polling.  it's that this is an obvious weakness that republicans can exploit -- and i don't think anybody believes that they will ignore that.

if obama or edwards are the nominees, republicans will have to start fresh on their oppo, throw out all their video, research their records from the beginning.  they won't have the 15 years of hillary to kick around, pointing out her inconsistencies, using her words against her.  they will have to go back to metaphors -- which, while powerful, isn't as powerful as video of hillary saying the exact opposite things.

moreover, only hillary touches the nerve.  without hillary, this election becomes more like 1992, where republicans are less motivated than in prior elections, disappointed with their own candidates, resentful of what the party did to them in recent memory.  hillary upends that.  EVERYBODY hates hillary.  she hits the raw nerve that mobilizes republicans.

i personally find it very difficult to hear the same kinds of things i heard in 2000 and 2004 and be optimistic.  the arguments of hillary's supporters were all made then, as well (except the historic nature of electing a female president).  i don't notice gore or kerry in the oval office.  i think hitting your head against the wall over and over is not very bright.  sure, the electorate agrees with democrats -- they have for ages.  yet every year, we are confident that this alone will elect our favorite candidate.  i've been fooled once already...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:13:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

bruh--People will vote in great numbers next year because they want change.  This is a very angry nation.  The people have not been this involved since the Vietnam era.  However, they do not want "pie in the sky" change.  They want to go back to what works.  Take a look at the new California poll.  People in all income brackets, all age groups, African Americans and Hispanics want Hillary. The middle class in in trouble.  That is republicans and democrats alike.  Bread and butter issues trump idealogy and thats a fact.  If you are posting for the Republicans you need to understand this. Prior to the Depression this nation had an all Republican Government who thought they would be in power forever.  Roosevelt won in a landslide because he represented change.  This is that kind of election.  Tell your Republican friends the wedge issues will not work this time.  They can come back in 2012 with some humility and a big apology to the American people. But they better cry when they apologize because people like me are not going to forgive them easily.


by changehorses08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dual Hurdles for a Woman Candidate (3.00 / 2)

First, it can be just as easily argued, if we are going to engage in speculation,t hat more men will not vote for her if she over emphasizes gender.

That is precisely why the commander-in-chief hurdle was higher for Hillary Clinton. Male voters respond to "toughness" in foreign affairs as their number one criteria for choosing a President, much more so than women. That is why she would not be electable if "she had voted like a wimp" (male voter thinking) in 2002.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:13:14 AM EST

Re: Not Going to Change Anything (3.00 / 1)

All I have to say is that Clinton's Yea vote for the 2002 Iraq Resolution was the right one. 75% of Americans wanted Saddam out. We all wanted to sweep through Iraq and bring about change and you know what, we did, but the war was grossley mismanaged.

The American armed forces swept through Iraq in two weeks, but after that, many mistakes were made. More troops should of been sent on the ground. The Iraqi army should of remain in place and a new Constitution should of began immediately. The war did not need to be the way it is now. We could of liberated Iraq, create a Democracy and get out in two years but we failed and I put that blame on the Bush Administration. I was overjoyed when Congress approved the Iraq Resolution and I know it was the right decesion to make, but the execution was awful.

Anyone who says it was a "mistake" is wrong. This is coming from a Democrat. No mistake was made in approving the Resolution. The mistake was made when the Bush Administraion failed to effectively manage the war and if any one wants to hold Clinton to her vote and not cast the ballot for her because of that one vote, so be it.

All I know is that I want my troops home, but saying "sorry" for one vote is not going change the fact that 4000 coalition troops have died. It is not going to change anything.


by RJGajadhar on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:12:13 AM EST

wow. they sure got you... (3.00 / 1)

i don't think 75% of americans gave a shit about saddam hussein unless he was connected to 9/11.  sure, the american political elite were pissed because he was like the energizer bunny.  but so what?  he represented NO THREAT to our national interests.

voting for an immoral war without reason -- and i mean besides hillary's political ambitions, because i accept that hillary couldn't stand up to bush when bush was strong -- is not something that americans should do.  this is especially true when we were already at war with a different enemy.  bush and hillary chose (elected) to open up a second war, one that was hugely damaging to the war we were already in.  sure, neither one of them are strategic thinkers, let alone leaders.  but hillary bought into bush's bullshit theories simply because she was too weak (intellectually and politically) to stand up against him.  she was a coward.

bush's and hillary's failure has perpetuated a state of war for this country.  it is an immense moral failure and failure in leadership.  hillary, especially, deserves condemnation because people like you would have looked up to her and given thought about why starting a second war before we had defeated al-qaeda and the enemies who attacked us was a stupid thing to do.  she is still unable to recognize the huge mistake she made and the consequences that have flowed from it.

when the country needed her most, she failed.  she failed to provide leadership and she failed to do the right thing.  there is no reason to expect that she will do better next time -- she doesn't really seem to have learned anything from her failure...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:53:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Weaving in and out of Gender Stereotypes (3.00 / 1)

One of the stranger things about the Hillary Clinton campaign is how the campaign lashes out at how unfair gender stereotyping is, then, in the next breath, tries to use gender stereotyping to benefit the campaign.  To me, it seems mixed up and muddled, and essentially talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Actually, if I were running the campaign, I would not weave in and out of gender stereotyping like this.  I would take a quiet, principled stand AGAINST gender stereotyping.  Judge me, the candidate, on my merits.  

So...I think rhetoric about "we will take out our brooms and clean" and "I am your girl" are outdated gender stereotypes.  I guess she thinks she can benefit herself by playing into them.  And I was also surprised by the campaign's early decision to run as "Hillary" on all the bumperstickers and the like.  To me, that seems sexist.  I would have gone with Hillary Clinton.

And as far as negative adjectives being used to describe her, as much as you feel you can link all of those to gender, every single presidential candidate in modern times has to face the issue of likeability.  Do you want to listen to that voice for 4 years?  Do you want to see those facial expressions and that demeanor for four years?  Does that person inspire trust in you?  For some chunk of the voters (perhaps 10-20%) these are actually important considerations. Charisma helps.  Annoying voices and mannerisms do not.  

How Hillary fares on this front is a legitimate question, and it is being asked...independent of gender.  There have been dozens of men, with great records, and great campaigns, who wanted to be president, but just didn't have likeability.  If Hillary should fail to get the nomination because of likeability, it does not, perforce, follow that this happened because of her gender.  She just might not be likeable enough.  

Finally, with all the talk of gender firsting...I wonder why no one ever seems to mention Geraldine Ferraro as VP candidate back in 1984.  Doesn't she get any credit?


by Demo37 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:17:08 AM EST

Re: Weaving in and out of Gender Stereotypes (none / 0)

"Finally, with all the talk of gender firsting...I wonder why no one ever seems to mention Geraldine Ferraro as VP candidate back in 1984.  Doesn't she get any credit?"

Credit for what? She brought nothing to the ticket. I was not alive then, but I don't know what Mondale was trying to do when he chose her. I suppose she gets credit for being the first female Vice Presidential nominee.


by RJGajadhar on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

he was trying to shake things up (none / 0)

He was trailing badly and it was going to be an uphill battle. He rolled the dice that by doing something "historic," putting a woman on the ticket,  he could start to change the dynamic of the race.

I was in high school then, and it was exciting to have a woman on the ticket, even though it was pretty obvious that Mondale was going to get wiped out.

Although I was not yet of voting age, I supported Hart during the 1984 primaries. It would have been tough to beat Reagan, but I think he would have done a lot better than Mondale. The memory of Mondale as VP in Carter's failed presidency was quite fresh then.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:01:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weaving in and out of Gender Stereotypes (3.00 / 4)

And I was also surprised by the campaign's early decision to run as "Hillary" on all the bumperstickers and the like.

Hillary is a superstar who is instantly known by only one name. Like Oprah.  

Going with just her first name on the posters and bumper stickers makes perfect sense to me.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:32:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weaving in and out of Gender Stereotypes (none / 0)

uhm-s ee this is what I mean. Someone gave you a 3 for saying Clinton is a superstar. You didn't  answer or explain a single thing regarding his critique.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:14:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weaving in and out of Gender Stereotypes (3.00 / 1)

"One of the stranger things about the Hillary Clinton campaign is how the campaign lashes out at how unfair gender stereotyping is, then, in the next breath, tries to use gender stereotyping to benefit the campaign."

So, according to you, if we support race-based diversity, we can't use the next breath th lash out at how unfair racism is?


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Issue is Using Stereotypes (none / 0)

No, you are missing the point.  The issue is whether the Clinton campaign should use sexist stereotyping to promote her candidacy.

Using and promoting outdated stereotypes on the campaign trail (eg. we will take out our brooms) is different from supporting affirmative action.

Look, there are probably 1 million sexist stereotypes out there available for a person to utter.  You have two options: either you say I am not going to use any of them as a matter of principle; I want to be judged on my merits as a candidate.  

Or, you can weave in and out of them, pick and choose which gender stereotypes to promote and utilize on the campaign trail.  I find the second approach confusing as a matter of principle.  But perhaps it works. Maybe it is the style now to set principle aside (stereotyping is bad) and just go with what works.


by Demo37 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Issue is Using Stereotypes (none / 0)

So if Obama references his race or his experience as a black man in America, he's giving all of his opponents permission to haul out racist attacks?

Or is your point that Obama shouldn't be allowed to talk about his race if he doesn't want to face accusations that he is "uppity" and crude "plantation" imagery from his opponents?


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Number 1 (3.00 / 2)

Is number 1.

Gore and Kerry both looked, they carried themselves as if sentenced to having to campaign for president.  

It is one of those things that can't be all fun all the time, but if it's not fun, you shouldn't be doing it.  Cause if it's not fun, you won't win.  When Bill campaigned, it was like he could never dream of doing anything but getting out there and meeting people and telling them what he could do for them.

Here is a picture of what Campaigning is like with Bill.

http://www.thehallway.net/multimedia/ker ry/kerry_clinton1_blog.jpg

Probably the only moment I ever saw Kerry start to actually have a good time.

I had some worries about Sen. Clinton at first.  Would she be more like Bill or would she be like Al and John?

In the Sopranos parody, they literally tell you their secret, and it's so obvious people forget to take it into account.  Bill asks Sen. Clinton how the campaign is going and she says:

"Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times."

So far, she's been herself, but still decidedly more to the Bill side of the equation.  I hope she keeps it up.

People can talk about all the laundry lists of proposals, people can talk all about all the politics of hope, and people can return billions of dollars back to the lobbyists in the grandest gesture of political purity ever known to mankind.

If you don't look like you're having fun while you're doing it, it won't register.

If Edwards and Obama supporters have started to scratch their heads mulling over how Clinton is doing it, well, the name is part of it.  Well, the 90s are part of it.  That long nightmare of peace and prosperity, you know.  And you can even tie yourself up in knots connecting a bunch of dots in the Main Stream Media and convince yourself she gets a free pass from the MSM.

But one would still be missing it.  If anyone is wondering how Clinton seems to be pulling it off -- so far -- look at no. 1 listed above.

If we find ourselves with Sen. Clinton winning the nomination, I suspect there will be a great outpouring of explanations over what went wrong in the Netroots.  Even Democratic voters themselves will be blamed by people in the Netroots for letting themselves be bamboozled by Sen. Clinton.

I can imagine a million excuses being tossed at the wall with the hopes of one of them sticking before it finally dawns on someone.

Look to no. 1 above.

She ran a great campaign.  Her ideas were solid.  Doable.  She made the right friends.  She talked to the people.  Confidence remained high throughout.

She did something the other candidates tried to do, but failed.

She had a great time.


by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:15:53 AM EST

Re: Number 1 (3.00 / 1)

I tend to agree.   It is a sign of our times that those who attack do so without looking at their own candidates' flaws, failings, shortcomings.  The "responsibility" is pushed forward, away from oneself towards externas, such as "the media," "the pundits," "the stupidity of voters."    No, and no.  YOUR candidate just is not good enough.  Nobody is perfect, but on balance YOUR candidate just had more shortcomings than others.   Which is exactly why they have problems connecting, making their case, getting the point across.

Should Clinton win the nomination, it is because on balance she offers the most.  Some will not learn that lesson, instead choose to lash out.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:08:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Never heard it summed up that way (none / 0)

"Gore and Kerry both looked, they carried themselves as if sentenced to having to campaign for president."

That is an absolutely fantastic way to describe the way those two muddled through a campaign.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:54:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Number 1 (3.00 / 1)

I think she gained the confidence to go out and be herself on the campaign trail from her two Senate campaigns, I would really say the first one.  In 2000, she was considered an absolute caricature, yet she did her famous listening tour and won.  I think that first victory shaped her approach.  Even the  firefighters dogging Rudy now has come full circle with her.  I've heard people call her Stepford, but look at her smile, it covers her whole face, it lights it up.


by Kingstongirl on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:37:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this is a very astute comment... (none / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:43:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Number 1 (none / 0)

I don't think anyone is questioning "how Clinton seems to be pulling it off." The reasons for her frontrunner status are immediately obvious as well as discussed here on this very site ad nauseum.

But look, I personally am not going to support someone just because they're having a "great time."
 


by Korha on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:22:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0)

Gore was sort of "sentenced" to whopping double digit deficits:

thanks to our recklessly horny pal.

Gore fought to back win the popular vote and likely won the election.
The 2000 Presidential election: A Synopsis


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:52:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore Chickened Out (none / 0)

And could have embraced Clinton's record.

Who's responsible for Gore?


by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was Clinton-Gore record (none / 0)

because Gore worked hard and was an integral part of the economic team at decision making level.

The presidency is about what you want to do for the future. Your past record establishes credentials that you're capable of delivering what you promise. Gore has done that, without turning his campaign into a bragfest.

Gore did talk about his join accomplishments with Clinton, eg, at the convention:


For almost eight years now, I've been the partner of a leader who moved us out of the valley of recession and into the longest period of prosperity in American history. I say to you tonight, millions of Americans will live better lives for a long time to come because of the job that's been done by President Bill Clinton.

Instead of the biggest deficits in history, we now have the biggest surpluses, the highest home ownership ever, the lowest inflation in a generation, and instead of losing jobs, we now have 22 million good new jobs, higher family incomes.

..

Together, we changed things to help unleash your potential, and unleash innovation and investment in the private sector, the engine that drives our economic growth. And our progress on the economy is a good chapter in our history.

But now we turn the page and write a new chapter. And that's what I want to speak about tonight. This election is not an award for past performance. I'm not asking you to vote for me on the basis of the economy we have. Tonight I ask for your support on the basis of the better, fairer, more prosperous America we can build together.

Given Clinton's high personal unfavorables (~ 65%, implying that a large number of independents, a critically needed swing group, had a negative view of Clinton as a person), the wording of how you do this needs to tailored to the audience.

The Republicans' plan B was to attach Clinton's high unfavorables and try to jack up Gore's with the association.


 (73) The billboard the Republican Party placed next to Vice President Gore's Nashville headquarters illustrates how Republicans made sure potential voters would "never see one without thinking of the other." According to the Republican Party press release issued on November 29, 1999:

The billboard will show Bill Clinton hugging Al Gore along with Gore's famous quote, "One of our Greatest Presidents," made at Clinton's post-impeachment pep rally. The advertisement is intended to emphasize the drag that Al Gore's support of Bill Clinton has had on his presidential campaign.
link

Aside from the campaign decisions Gore made based on hard evidence (and given the alternatives, I think his choice was logically sound), Gore's feeling about Clinton were clear from this link, esp. the hardball interview in 2002.  He considered Bill Clinton a close friend and partner, DID NOT approve of Clinton's selfish/reckless conduct, but in the balance of things did not think that Clinton should have been impeached, stood by Clinton on impeachment.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is Responsible (none / 0)

For Gore?


by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What does that mean? (none / 0)

BTW, I don't think that Hillary Clinton camp would benefit by raising the 2000 election to undermine Gore. The facts are very clear that the scandal handicapped Gore sufficiently to substantially hamper his prospects.

I like Bill because i think he has a heart; although he was reckless to give into cheap thrills with so much was at stake for the party/country/world, in my opinion, in his heart he wanted Gore to win.

That doesn't change the harsh reality of the deficits that Gore needed to overcame, and which in my opinion also affected the media to go easy bashing him (they would have less daring to go after Gore had he been in the lead.)


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and, of course, Gore Won (none / 0)

despite all of that he had to deal with. Certainly the popular vote, but most likely FL as well.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy: (3.00 / 1)

I do think most people have thought she ws tough enough to be "Commander-in-chief."  I do think another woman running, that would be a much bigger challenge for then to get that across- but we've known Hillary for quite awhile and her time in the White House and having a husband be a former-President certainly gives her an advantage a woman starting out would not have.

Hillary has done a great job of humanizing herself with people- and this was most likely  very hard task for her that she had to get through- in LIVING HISTORY, which made me like her more even though I thought that was impossible- she admitted her many problems with dealing with people and she had a very hard time with the press which she confessed she had been too cold towards, especially the White House reporters.  But Hillary is only human, she's not perfect, she made mistakes, but it was only hard on her being such a vital part of Bills' campaign and being denied "titles" and respect because she was a woman and the wife- you could tell she was so happy to see HER name on the ballot after all those years of working just as hard as Bill but standing back to give him all the glory because she was the "woman."  I think this happiness as being able to represent herself has given her the strangth to be more open and show herself more and work hard to overcome her past situation.  Even when she was thinking of a Senate campaign, she had very close friends and people she respected flat-out telling her she could not possibly win- that there was no chance at all of it happening and she was bringing herself only heartache if she tried.


by reasonwarrior on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:07:25 AM EST

As I Stated On Daily Kos..... (none / 0)

So shall I state here.

As much as Barack Obama is slammed and bashed all the time , I notice that Obama supporters are the only ones who never throw a livid conniption fit. We just respond back. Why do people have to play the victim card every time a candidate is attacked?
I won't lie. Hillary gets hers and I'm not gonna lie again when I say deep in my heart and soul, I believe she deserves it. But , I'm sorry. I am having a hard time understanding why when Obama gets brutally attacked , Obama supporters just respond with the truth and debunk everything that's being said.
But when it comes to certain other candidates, their supporters start throwing a fit, going into conspiracy rantings , tell everyone to go to hell and then end it with.
"Can we be friends?" sniff sniff.
Why are Obama supporters told to suck it up. If we can't take it, we won't be prepared for the General, but everyone else gets to whine and bitch? Let's either make it FAIR for ALL and CONSISTANT , or for me, the bet is off. I don't care who gets their little feelings hurt when I have to sit abround and read nothing but pure punitry spewed BS from hypocrites who can talk smack but can't take when it's done back to them. Oh, and one more thing. That "Sexism Against Hillary BS"? I am a strong Black woman and Hillary hasn't gone through half the shet I have in my life . Now, Call me Sexist. I dare you!


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:58:11 AM EST

Re: As I Stated On Daily Kos..... (none / 0)

Ooops, wrong Diary. My apologies.

But the last part can easily apply to this post as well.

That "Sexism Against Hillary BS"? I am a strong Black woman and Hillary hasn't gone through half the shet I have in my life . Now, Call me Sexist. I dare you!

That is fitting for this post.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:08:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I Stated On Daily Kos..... (3.00 / 1)

If you attack Hillary for being a woman, or if you imply your attack through innuendo, then you're being sexist. It doesn't matter what you've been through or who you are.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Her challenge will be when the attack comes (none / 0)

It is hard to look friendly and fun when you have to beat back an attack and deliver a blow.

From what I have seen she has been great on the trail and is realling connecting with people.  If she locks it up feb. 5 and has all the way to Nov. to connect with America as a whole she can do great things.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:36:49 AM EST

Re: Her challenge will be when the attack comes (3.00 / 1)

Hillary Clinton is no stranger to being attacked.


by Pender on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her challenge will be when the attack comes (none / 0)

From your mouth to God's ears.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:50:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF? (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton entered this campaign facing two hurdles that are unique, or at least amplified, by the fact that she is the first female candidate in the 230 year history of our country to have a legitimate chance of being elected President:

1) To an even greater extent than male candidates, Clinton had to cross the "commander-in-chief" threshold. Americans will not elect a President unless they believe there is sufficient experience and resolve to handle national security. This, of course, has been a long-standing knock on potential women candidates. They are too weak.

Who are the potential women candidates to which you refer? Liddy Dole?

2) Hillary Clinton has been portrayed as "cold", "strident", "aggressive" and any number of other euphemisms for "bitchy". Why the animosity?

That's easy; because Hillary Clinton is "cold", "strident", "aggressive" and "bitchy".

It's again a gender-based issue. Specifically, when she came to Washington, Clinton broke the mold of June Cleaver first ladies in pill box hats, white gloves, and elegant gowns working on "women's projects" like decorating the White House for Christmas.

I thought Elanor Roosevelt did that.

She was the first to have a professional career.

Being first lady of Arkansas is a professional career?

And, the first to tackle serious policy issues that were viewed as "men's work".

Its the BS like this that makes Hillary unacceptable to many Democrats, not to mention the fact that in addition to her many "firsts" that she has been last to state that her support for the Bush administration was a mistake.


by shlenny on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:57:29 AM EST

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 2)

"Its the BS like this that makes Hillary unacceptable to many Democrats"

I have to point out once again that reality differs from this account.  DEMOCRATS indeed find Clinton the MOST acceptable of all candidates.  Her favorables are higher than any of the other candidates, but, even more telling, her unfavorables are lower than Obama's and Edwards in the group you describe.  DEMOCRATS like her just fine.  Not quite so much the other candidates, which is why they routinely lag behind Clinton badly in the net favorable/unfavorable metric (usually by 25% or more.)


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:11:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

None of which answer the core problems this person list about this diary. Frankly your only answer is she's liked by Dedmocratic primary voters. SHe can't win the general being liked by primary voters. Not in OH and not FL. Until you answer that you are just engaging in a shellgame,a nd you know it.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:17:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 1)

What in the world are you talking about?  The poster made the claim that many DEMOCRATS find her unacceptable, when in reality that number is dramatically lower than these numbers show for Obama and Edwards.  They are LIKED LESS and DISLIKED MORE by Democrats at this point.   The GE was not even an issue in my response to the poster.

But, speaking of which, we have data that shows us that Clinton is BY FAR our best bet for Florida and Ohio.  I live in this state.  I know how people in Florida view Edwards and Obama at this point, not just the Democrats, but also general audiences.    The polls are very clear, whether they have been conducted by Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Strategic Vision or another firm:   Edwards and Obama show significant negatives with DEMOCRATS in Florida at the same time Clinton is seen as our best bet in the general election, in fact, beats Giuliani by a large margin in Florida (and every other GOP comer with even larger margins,) is the most competetive with Giuliani (of our candidates) in Ohio and Pennsylvania.    


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:31:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

After 20 years of being slammed by the Right Wing Attack Dogs--no wonder she has high negatives.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:52:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good analysis (none / 0)

I disagree with some of the comments about Clinton and "baggage".  Clinton "baggage" is the legacy of two decades of Republican attacks and smears.  No matter who the candidate is and how little "baggage" that candidate brings, the Republican smear machine will create all the "baggage" that candidate can handle.  Look, they made John Kerry into a coward for getting wounded while serving in Vietnam.  They made Cleland who gave up his body in Nam  into a traitor.  Do you seriously think that ANY candidate will be immune from attack?

Personally, I am undecided and I think we have several candidates that I would be happy to support in a general election.  A key to winning will be a candidate who will attack the Republican candidate the way Bill Clinton did in 1992 and 1996 and fail to respond the way Gore and Kerry did not.  Since this is a HRC post, the Hillary 'invisible" commerical is exactly the type of scorn that should be heaped on the Republican policy and their inability to govern.  That said, Edwards does a good job of openly whacking them and Obama has a more subtle style.  Some of the other candidates need to turn up the heat on Republicans.


by bakho on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:32:30 AM EST

the dominant frame about hillary is definitely... (none / 0)

right wing.  she gave up control of her image in the mid-90s and has never taken it back...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:57:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh, huh (none / 0)

"A key to winning will be a candidate who will attack the Republican candidate the way Bill Clinton did in 1992 and 1996 and fail to respond the way Gore and Kerry did not."

In 1991, Gore attacked and ripped apart Bush-I's on his supposed strength, namely foreign policy. Gore WAS the one with foreign policy chops, without whom, Bush-I would have managed to paint Bill Clinton's FP credentials as measurable by number of visits to the International House of Pancakes :)

Gore helped marginalize Bush-I on FP, and thus paved way for both Clinton and Gore to lay out an economic agenda ("It's the economy stupid"), and later helped deliver on the same.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats and debates (none / 0)

The importance of the debates is establishing that Democrats are capable of governing and doing the will of the people while the GOP is not.  Whichever candidate captures the imagination and support of the part will carry the standard.  2008 is a "throw the bums out" election.  Whoever can make the best case that all Republicans are bums that should be thrown out will do the best.  In the longer term, whoever wins must be able to govern effectively or the opportunity will be squandered.  Governing will be difficult because Bush is leaving things FUBAR.


by bakho on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:37:10 AM EST

we are the bums... (none / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Strategy (3.00 / 1)

Hillary accomplished what many thought would be impossible ... she established herself as the Democratic candidate who would be the most capable when it comes to national security.  Obama didn't do this.  Edwards most certainly didn't do this.  Hillary did it.

She could never be President if she had not paid attention to this extremely important requirement - the country will NOT elect a President who appears weak on national security.  

Good for Hillary.  Tear her down all you like, but she could teach Obama and Edwards a thing or two about how to win the trust of the electorate.

Great diary hwc.

 


by samueldem on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:57:05 AM EST

Re: Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

And she gave us permission to be happy again.  I love her for that.  


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks, hwc (3.00 / 1)

Thanks, hwc.  Another great diary.  Excellent analysis of HRC's strategy.  Can't wait to see george's diary later today.


by markjay on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:58:28 AM EST

Re: thanks, hwc (none / 0)

Markay, it won't be until later this evening (like last time) due to work.  

I am planning to focus on Clinton's strong Democratic roots and her "fight for Democrats and against Republicans" type campaign that seems exactly what the doctor ordered for us Democrats at this juncture (in contrast to Obama's "let's all get along, the other side is not all that bad, if anything, Democrats are just as bad" theme Obama is on.)


by georgep on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Hillary will never be my candidate (none / 0)

What's Hillary's plan to restore Constitutional government?

When she has one, I'll look at her.

Meanwhile, IMNSHO, I look see her as having identified with her abusers, in classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion. Joining a prayer group with the very same VRWC types who were staging the coup against Clinton  is a little bit much, I think.

And having identified with her abusers, she's become their candidate. Hillary won't change the Beltway one iota. That's why Rove is attacking her: He wants what he believes to be the base to rally round her.

Of course, I'd vote for Hillary in the general in a heartbeat. I'd rather be ruled by a sane emperor, like Marcus Aurelius, say, than by an insane one, like Caligula, which is what we have now.  Nevertheless, I don't want to be ruled by an emperor or a monarch. I want to be governed by a President.

So, it's because I think Hillary will to little or nothing to arrest the trend of the country toward authoritarianism that she's not my candidate, nor ever will be.

After all, if she wanted to get some cred on restoring Constitutional goverment, it would have been very simple: She could have brought the Senate to a halt to prevent the passage of the Orwellian "Protect America" Act, preventing FISA from being gutted, along with the Fourth Amendment. Instead, she went on vacation, which I guess was more important to her.

Too bad. Maybe she's learned from her health care disaster in the first Clinton administration. And it would be great to have a woman as President. But I put not gender, but the Constitution first, and I don't believe that Hillary does, either in words, or in action.


by lambert on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:16:23 PM EST

Re: Why Hillary will never be my candidate (none / 0)

Better ask Republicans, they voted to get rid of Habeus Corpus.  Blame them for tearing up our Constitution.  When Hillary is President she will be responsible for upholding the Constitution.  For now put the blame where it belongs.


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dual Hurdles for a Woman Candidate (3.00 / 3)

Joining a prayer group with the very same VRWC types who were staging the coup against Clinton  is a little bit much, I think.

Let me get this straight. You are attacking Senator Clinton because, when she went to Washington, she joined a women's prayer group? And then drew on the support of the women in that prayer group to get through her husband's sex scandal? All because some of the women in the group were Republicans instead of Democrats?

Sorry. That's a bit too partisan for my blood.


by hwc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:42:03 PM EST

Re: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Candidate (none / 0)

HWC. No, that's not what I'm doing, as you well know, since first you quote me ("...with the very same VRWC type...") and then proceed to mischaractize what I said. Anyhow, Quote:


    In the first month of the Clinton presidency she joined a women's prayer group whose members included Susan Baker, the wife of Reagan-Bush chief of staff/sec. of state James Baker, as well as the wife of the Washington Redskins chaplain who was also the minister of the McLean church where Kenneth Starr and other conservative Republican luminaries worship.

   These women sent Hillary scripture readings, came to the White House to pray with and for her, and generally were a welcome source of strength and friendship for her throughout the White House years, and especially as the Lewinsky ugliness moved relentlessly through her life.

And she's still doing it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/gr een-hillary

She's definitely a candidate the Beltway can live with. And while I definitely vote for her in the general--In the same way that I'd pick, say, Tiberius over Caligula--let's all be aware of who we're voting for, eh?


by lambert on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:02:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton Strategy (none / 0)

Excellent job hwc.

Keep up the great work.

I look forward to the next front page posting.


by lonnette33 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:51:46 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.