Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cbasu





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 391
Reputation: 131.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:53 am    Post subject: Hillary Clinton: The Audacity of Hopelessness. Reply with quote

The Clinton campaign - Bill or Hillary, take your pick - has erected yet another firewall in the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio. If the polls are correct, Texas - with its byzantine delegate allocation system - will be a wash, and Obama is catching up rapidly in Ohio.

So, why did she implode so spectacularly? For that, we turn to the New York Times which was once among her most vocal cheerleaders.

In a Feb 24/08 NYT column entitled 'The Audacity of Hopelessness' Frank Rich wrote:
(unabridged, italicized) WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.

In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

Sums it up rather nicely, I would say. Time for the Clintons to go home.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:45 am    Post subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: The Audacity of Hopelessness. Reply with quote

cbasu wrote:
Sums it up rather nicely, I would say. Time for the Clintons to go home.
Frankly, they're both unelectable candidates. For whatever it's worth, the US doesn't like royal-family type foibles in its White House, and the Clintons defiled that venue mightily their first time around. The US is not Pakistan, and does not give second chances to miscreants.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hillary Clinton is the personification of long fingernails on a chalk board.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Say what you will about Hillary, but as bad as you envision a Hillary presidency could be, an Obama one would be worse.
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Say what you will about Hillary, but as bad as you envision a Hillary presidency could be, an Obama one would be worse.

You are so right! Pretty sad state of affairs eh?
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanmonk wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
Say what you will about Hillary, but as bad as you envision a Hillary presidency could be, an Obama one would be worse.

You are so right! Pretty sad state of affairs eh?
Fortunately, neither will happen.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Fortunately, neither will happen.

I hope you're right about that. McCain is bad enough, but either of those two ... :shock:
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Quote:
Fortunately, neither will happen.

I hope you're right about that. McCain is bad enough, but either of those two ... :shock:
Reading MSM and polls, you will tihnk the election will be close, or that Obama will win. The way our country is set up that won't happen. Could even be a blowout.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JBG wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
Quote:
Fortunately, neither will happen.

I hope you're right about that. McCain is bad enough, but either of those two ... :shock:
Reading MSM and polls, you will tihnk the election will be close, or that Obama will win. The way our country is set up that won't happen. Could even be a blowout.


Can I put you on record for predicting a McCain win in November then?
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
JBG wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
Quote:
Fortunately, neither will happen.

I hope you're right about that. McCain is bad enough, but either of those two ... :shock:
Reading MSM and polls, you will tihnk the election will be close, or that Obama will win. The way our country is set up that won't happen. Could even be a blowout.


Can I put you on record for predicting a McCain win in November then?

Absolutely. I consider myself on the record on that already in multiple places on multiple forums.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too am predicting a McCain victory, but not a blowout. I think this election will be won by a slim margin.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
I too am predicting a McCain victory, but not a blowout. I think this election will be won by a slim margin.
The popular vote margin will be slim, maybe 52% to 48% (if no independent or third party candidate such as Bloomberg) but the electoral margin will be similar to 1980.

The electoral margin in 1980 was 489 to 49. The popular vote margin was 50.7% to 41.0%, with 6.6% of the remaining 9.7% going to independent John Anderson (that vote including my parents, with mine going to Carter). I don't think that Bloomberg will run, so the numbers should look a lot like 1980, with the "independent" vote of that election split roughly evenly, but a similar electoral result.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JBG wrote:
The popular vote margin will be slim, maybe 52% to 48% (if no independent or third party candidate such as Bloomberg) but the electoral margin will be similar to 1980.

Latest poll on Obama vs. McCain:

Obama: 51 McCain: 41

link
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
JBG- I don't think that Bloomberg will run, so the numbers should look a lot like 1980

With Nader now running again it could siphon off 2 or 3% of the Dem's vote. Without him on the ballot in 2000 we would have had a President Gore for the last 8 years.

Quote:
gc- Latest poll on Obama vs. McCain:
Obama: 51 McCain: 41

National polls don't really mean too much yet,
Obama's brightness will fade considerably over the next 8 months and although likely, McCain's candidacy is not a given..
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
JBG wrote:
The popular vote margin will be slim, maybe 52% to 48% (if no independent or third party candidate such as Bloomberg) but the electoral margin will be similar to 1980.

Latest poll on Obama vs. McCain:

Obama: 51 McCain: 41

link
I doubt that breaks out likely voters, and the impact of FPTP on a statewide level.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Hillary Clinton: The Audacity of Hopelessness.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB