Like it or not - Logic From the Wall Street Journal
by SovSov, Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:28:21 AM EDT
If Hillary is going to find a path to victory, which no person has been able to find, she is going to have to address the salient concerns of people who are not voting for her and other high placed backers. Singing to the choir, having the same three diarists on the rec. page, over and over, really has not moved your ball. And only the person not already in the end zone needs to move the ball.
Hence, one should take note of The Wall Street Journal's Deputy Editor, Daniel Henninger, who points out why he thinks Obama is going to win and, most importantly, why Hillary isn't.
Instead of jumping up and down and echoing that which has yet failed her, a new day better get dawning with HRC and her supporters. Mere traction at this point in the game is useless.
First, Daniel Henninger and the WSJ are not supporting Obama. Rather, the Editorial merely gives us some darn good logic why Hillary is headed to a loss.
As the piece so clearly points out Hillary lost support of critical backers. Why? That is the point she needs to address. Sending the likes of Carville will not work.
Sam Nunn and David Boren by political temperament should be in her camp. Instead, they threw in with Obama, who calls his campaign "post-partisan," a ludicrous phrase. The blowback at ABC's debate makes clear that Obama is the left's man. So what did Messrs. Nunn and Boren see?
That is the million dollar question which needs to be answered. Not someone yacking about the Weathermen, Is Wright a patriot, what does your lapel pin look like, etc. Hitting the target means aiming at the right one.
Then there is the money issue. Yes, there has been much complaining about how Obama spends more money than Hillary. Yet, that is why all those small contributors gave him the money - to spend it. Also, for the most part Hillary gets her bucks from big donors and they really have not been able to close the gap. Plus, getting money from big donors means when a few fall off you feel it. It also looks "un-democratic."
It is hard to overstate how fatigued Democratic donors in Manhattan and L.A. got during the Clinton presidency to have Bill and Hillary fly in, repeatedly, to sweep checking accounts. The Lincoln Bedroom rental was cheesy. Bill's 60th birthday gala (tickets $60,000 to 500K) was a Clinton fund-raiser. The 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal pushed Clinton contributors toward a milieu most didn't need in their lives. Hillary's 2007 Norman Hsu fund-raising scandal was an unsettling rerun of what the donor base could expect from another Clinton presidency.
Most likely the hardest thing for Hillary has been:
Obama proved he could perform this most basic function in politics, it was a get-out-of-jail-free card for many Democrats. For some, this may be personal. For others, it is likely a belief that the party's interests lie with finding an alternative to the Clinton saga.
So people can complain, slice and dice it as to change the narrative with ideas which miss the point: "If you look at the white guys in PA who weight more than 200 pounds Hillary is a winner." "If we were using the republican scheme Hillary would win." "If we could take all the votes in Michigan and Florida, and toss the Party's sanctions..."
Yet, none of this goes to the above issues. When Hillary starts to get away from her previously failed strategy things may change. Maybe, the top rec.ed people here will start to see through the fog and address the real issues which concern the people who are not yet supporting Hillary. Or instead, you can re-hash and re-hash the same arguments which have failed so far....unless of course someone can explain how 1726 is less than 1592
If they don't like the music turning up the volume will not help. It is time to change the tune without looking like a waffle.