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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
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.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
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 ]