One argument that women who support Hillary Clinton advance for why she voted the way she did on the Iraq War Resolution is that she "had" to vote that way in order to be a credible presidential candidate in 2008. The argument goes that since the public has questions over whether a woman can be "tough" enough to be president, she could not afford to vote against the Resolution because it would make her seem "weak." Thus, even though she might not have trusted what Bush would do with the power given to him by the Resolution, she had to vote "Yea" to maintain her political credibility.
Frankly, that argument makes Clinton look very calculating. Not only does it make her look calculating, it makes her look calculating with the lives of other people's children. What it basically says is that Clinton was willing to send other people's children off to die or be wounded so that she could be a valid presidential candidate in 2008.
There is only one reason to vote to send American troops into combat and that is because you believe that such action is absolutely vital to the security of the United States. You don't vote to send other people's children off to be killed because it helps improve your chances to become president.
It would be better to say that she believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that removing them was absolutely essential to the security of the United States. Of course, that argument would be undercut by Clinton's own speech on the floor of the Senate when she claimed that she was voting for the resolution in order to strengthen Bush's hand diplomatically. The problem with that rationale is that it assumes that she was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when there is absolutely no evidence he deserved it.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, June 02, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
If Clinton Loses, It Won't Be Only About Sexism
Campaigns are emotional things, not only for the candidates, but also for their supporters. When you invest time and/or money in supporting a candidate, and that candidate loses, it hurts. When the candidate is running for the presidency, a vote that political commentator Mark Shields once called "the most emotional vote in American politics", it hurts more. So it is understandable that Clinton's supporters are not happy with what seems to be her probable defeat for the Democratic nomination.
The bitter feelings were probably inevitable when the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination became Obama and Clinton. African-American voters have been, since 1964, the most reliable demographic group of voters in the Democratic coalition. They vote usually around 90% for the Democratic presidential nominee.
White women are the next most reliable group in the coalition. A lot of party activists are women. They do the work that makes the party competitive in a lot of races.
An Obama/Clinton confrontation meant that the historic opportunity for one of these groups to elect a president was going to be lost. Further, it could mean the loss of an opportunity that won't come again for a long, long time. Right now it is hard to imagine either an African-American candidate or a woman candidate for the presidential nomination that will have the opportunities that Obama and Clinton had this year.
Given all of that, it is understandable that Clinton's supporters are looking for an explanation for her possible loss. A lot of them blame sexism, especially from the media and also from the Democratic Party's leadership.
There is no doubt that in many cases Hillary Clinton has been treated in a condescending and sexist manner by the national media. There is also no doubt that Obama, like Clinton, has made comments that were inappropriate and unfortunate. Those two things don't mean, however, that Obama wins are only about sexism.
Here's what's not sexist. It wasn't sexism that made Hillary Clinton vote for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. It wasn't sexism that made her campaign ignore the states that have caucuses instead of primaries. It wasn't sexism that allowed Obama's campaign to do a better job of mastering the rules of the Democratic Party, as this article points out. It wasn't sexism that caused her to allow Mark Penn to establish control of her message until it was almost too late. It wasn't sexism that made her make remarks about her appeal to "hard-working Americans, white Americans", comments that seemed to suggest that only "white Americans" are hard working. It wasn't sexism that made her talk about being under sniper fire in Bosnia or about the RFK assassination. It wasn't sexism that caused hundred of thousands of Obama's supporters to make small donations to help fund his candidacy.
The fact of the matter is that Obama ran a much better campaign than Clinton, which is why he has won more delegates than Clinton. She started out with more money, more support among elected Democrats and among Democratic Party leaders, better name recognition, and the advantage of having been through two national campaigns, plus a campaign in a very populous state. She also had a very dedicated group of volunteers supporting her. Even with all those advantages, however, she couldn't close the deal with Democratic primary voters. The cause of that failure lies more with her decisions than with sexism in the media or in politics.
The bitter feelings were probably inevitable when the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination became Obama and Clinton. African-American voters have been, since 1964, the most reliable demographic group of voters in the Democratic coalition. They vote usually around 90% for the Democratic presidential nominee.
White women are the next most reliable group in the coalition. A lot of party activists are women. They do the work that makes the party competitive in a lot of races.
An Obama/Clinton confrontation meant that the historic opportunity for one of these groups to elect a president was going to be lost. Further, it could mean the loss of an opportunity that won't come again for a long, long time. Right now it is hard to imagine either an African-American candidate or a woman candidate for the presidential nomination that will have the opportunities that Obama and Clinton had this year.
Given all of that, it is understandable that Clinton's supporters are looking for an explanation for her possible loss. A lot of them blame sexism, especially from the media and also from the Democratic Party's leadership.
There is no doubt that in many cases Hillary Clinton has been treated in a condescending and sexist manner by the national media. There is also no doubt that Obama, like Clinton, has made comments that were inappropriate and unfortunate. Those two things don't mean, however, that Obama wins are only about sexism.
Here's what's not sexist. It wasn't sexism that made Hillary Clinton vote for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. It wasn't sexism that made her campaign ignore the states that have caucuses instead of primaries. It wasn't sexism that allowed Obama's campaign to do a better job of mastering the rules of the Democratic Party, as this article points out. It wasn't sexism that caused her to allow Mark Penn to establish control of her message until it was almost too late. It wasn't sexism that made her make remarks about her appeal to "hard-working Americans, white Americans", comments that seemed to suggest that only "white Americans" are hard working. It wasn't sexism that made her talk about being under sniper fire in Bosnia or about the RFK assassination. It wasn't sexism that caused hundred of thousands of Obama's supporters to make small donations to help fund his candidacy.
The fact of the matter is that Obama ran a much better campaign than Clinton, which is why he has won more delegates than Clinton. She started out with more money, more support among elected Democrats and among Democratic Party leaders, better name recognition, and the advantage of having been through two national campaigns, plus a campaign in a very populous state. She also had a very dedicated group of volunteers supporting her. Even with all those advantages, however, she couldn't close the deal with Democratic primary voters. The cause of that failure lies more with her decisions than with sexism in the media or in politics.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Why Doesn't Clinton Mention 1976?
At least twice in the last three months, Senator Hillary Clinton has mentioned the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy, which occurred in June of 1968, when discussing her reasoning for continuing her campaign. She also mentions the 1992 campaign of her husband and the then California Governor, Jerry Brown. What's interesting is that she doesn't mention the 1976 campaign, which also involved Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter.
In 1976 Carter had won several primaries when Jerry Brown jumped into the race. He ran off several primary wins, mainly in the western states. On June 8, 1976, both California and Ohio held their primaries. Carter won both of them. Shortly after those two victories, in fact, if memory serves, the next day, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly, head of the Illinois delegation, announced his support for Carter. His announcement, combined with the wins in California and Ohio, sealed the deal for Carter.
The 1976 example is actually better for Clinton than either of the other two examples. First of all, mentioning 1976 doesn't raise references with the events of 1968, which included both the assassination of Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, not to mention the events at the 1968 Democratic convention. Second, it is actually more apt to her present situation with the super-delegates. As set forth above, it wasn't just the combination of the June 8Th primary victories, but also the endorsement of Mayor Richard Daly. Thus, you had the expression of Democratic voters combined with the expression of a Democratic insider.
Why not use 1976 instead of 1968 when making her case for continuing her campaign? Like so many questions about her campaign, the failure to do so is puzzling. Perhaps it boils down to this, the Clinton operation is not as intelligent as we all thought.
In 1976 Carter had won several primaries when Jerry Brown jumped into the race. He ran off several primary wins, mainly in the western states. On June 8, 1976, both California and Ohio held their primaries. Carter won both of them. Shortly after those two victories, in fact, if memory serves, the next day, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly, head of the Illinois delegation, announced his support for Carter. His announcement, combined with the wins in California and Ohio, sealed the deal for Carter.
The 1976 example is actually better for Clinton than either of the other two examples. First of all, mentioning 1976 doesn't raise references with the events of 1968, which included both the assassination of Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, not to mention the events at the 1968 Democratic convention. Second, it is actually more apt to her present situation with the super-delegates. As set forth above, it wasn't just the combination of the June 8Th primary victories, but also the endorsement of Mayor Richard Daly. Thus, you had the expression of Democratic voters combined with the expression of a Democratic insider.
Why not use 1976 instead of 1968 when making her case for continuing her campaign? Like so many questions about her campaign, the failure to do so is puzzling. Perhaps it boils down to this, the Clinton operation is not as intelligent as we all thought.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Results of HIllary Clinton Survey
MCDAC readers responded to our survey on whether Hillary Clinton should drop out following the results of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. Our readers voted 56.1% to 43% that she should drop out. Less than 1% of those responding didn't vote. Below are some comments by our readers:
If she were considering the best interest of the country she would have already. No chance to win without foul play.
never give up
The delegate math says it is near impossible for her to win the nomination. For the sake of the party, she needs to gracefully step aside.
With as much grace as she can and start supporting Obama.
She fought the good fight, now it's time to exit and stop wasting money on a campaign she can't win.
Hillary Clinton is best qualified to beat John McCain and correct the ills that permeate this nation and lead this country to our former glory.
Keep voting for Clinton
I just cannot vote for Obama
Hillary has almost no chance and has damaged the democratic party with her negative comments and ads. She should drop out the sooner the better.
stay in there till the last dogs dead
i'm foh hillary, shes best for for the job
quit hounding her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She is not presidential material and has no experience in global affairs. Only knows old
Washington politics. Not a creative thinker.
Hillary Clinton is the only one who can beat McCain !
Her husband efficiently balanced the budget, she will also. So fear an October surprize: his VP sellection? Gov. Richardson, a loser choice.
This fun to watch, keep the battle going, helps keep money spent now!
It really doesn't matter. Once again the D's have come up with two unelectable candidates. Either will be toast in November.
She made a valiant attempt, but it is time to go. She should go back to the Senate and take over as Majority Leader.
As her campaign grows more futile, she becomes more and more combative and ugly. Time to quit.
The situation is getting ridiculous. I feel pity for her. She seems obsessed.
We need to get this party united behind one great candidate. Let's stop picking on ourselves.
I wouldn't care if Hillary and Obama both dropped out of the race, human or otherwise.
I support Hillary it but appears the numbers are against her. Hillary needs to see the light and Obama to realize Hillary will guarantee his election
She should have dropped out long ago.
No way, Jose.If all votes are counted Hillary will win. We don't want to be short-changed or have a quick-change artist. We need Hillary.
It's time for Democrats to avoid attacks on each other, and to concentrate on exposing what can be expected from a continuation of the Bush policies.
We need to rally around our nominee now and focus on beating John McCain in November.
As much as I want her as our nominee, I don't think she is going to win. I believe our party needs to come together now or we may lose in November.
This is a hard one, but Obama seems destined. I just hope he can beat whiney McCain. An Obama-Hillary ticket might ensure that.
Enough of this we need one candidate
Sadly, she should so that the dems can begin campaigning to win the White House in November.
It's over, and she needs to face it.
I still think she is more trustworthy than Obama. I'll vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. A vote for McCain is more of the same.
We have much work to do to unify the party and focus our energy on McCain and the General Election.
don't know what she expects to gain by staying, the contest is over. rush's dittoheads have propped her up lately but won't be there in november.
She's doing too much harm, seeming self-righteous, but injecting nastiness and divisiveness into this campaign.
She should drop out for the good of the party, although I doubt if that concerns her. She's entitled to the presidency, dammit! Bill promised her.
She is too polarizing to win in Nov. Obama has a much better chance in the general election. Waiting until August only benefits the Republican party.
Let them fight it out at the convention.
It's history in the making. A woman president and
a Democrat too boot. WOW
Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, hey hey hey, goodbye
But that would require her to care about someone other than herself.
Both are needed down to the wire. They may yet realize they need to give specifics and the cost of their platforms so Democrats have a real choice.
If she is honest about her desire to serve her party and nation, now is the time for her to say she and her supporters fought the good fight.
I want a woman in the White House. I continue to support her.
It is time to put things back together for the general election.
YES. YES. YES! She's destroying our Party and alienating Independents who are willing to vote for Obama.
I don't think she will, but I would very much appreciate it.
Vice President is not a bad thing. Look at Cheney -- he's been running the country for the past seven years.
She is better than Obama,she has more experiance than him and is better qualified for the job of running this country and she believes in GOD.........
Hell no! Her victories have come in big states we need to win. Obama wins only in small states or caucuses. Hillary is better candidate.
she only divides the party and helps the republicans. that is why russ limbaugh is supporting her.
Unless she can get committed super-delegates to reverse themselves, the result is a mathematical certainty.
Continue until she wins the White House!
I don't like Obama. In fact I can't even imagine us having a black President nor a black family in the White House. It isn't that I am prejudice.
It has been close , it will continue to be close, which can impact policy decisions and choices at the convention. we deserve a complete process.
She is a former Republican and a waffler.
This needs to be done in a manner that facilitates the unification of the Democratic part.
NO, HELL NO!
She should concede but be proud of what she accomplished. Obama should pick her as his running mate; Obama/Clinton ticket would be unstoppable.
Hell, no, she shouldn't go.
This should be a mute questions ~ she should have already dropped out.
I have been a Hilary supporter since day one, but things have not gone her way. We need a Democrat to win this election! Barack is our hope.
She is obviously a poor sport and a non team player. Why is she so hell bent on staying in? What is her hidden agenda? I do not trust her.
But it surely is much more interesting with her in there fighting and keeping McCain off the front page.
please. drp out. the majority of democrats want change.
We need Obama to unite the party. Hillary is polarizing - and mean.
There's a deeper agenda here. A Wellesley/Yale grad can easily read the tea leaves and still she remains. Battle for the party, maybe?
The race is too close to call. Should be more fun for the convention delegates to go beyond the 1st ballot.
ABSOLUTELY STAY IN THE RACE!I am so tired that the media and powers-that-be have been trying to push her out from the get-go.
My concern is that alot of Black people voted
for Obama simply because of his color. I think
Hillary should stay in and fight to the end.
Her own political future has more potential if she steps down gracefully now.
Her words and actions in the past weeks have shown her to be a politician of the old school--do anything to stay in office.
Hillary should immediately drop out UNLESS she can make a credible case, with real numbers, that she still has a chance to be nominated.
I applaud Barack & Hillary for engaging many new voters. Finish all 50 states, let the voter's voices be heard, even if she can't win the nomination.
If she were considering the best interest of the country she would have already. No chance to win without foul play.
never give up
The delegate math says it is near impossible for her to win the nomination. For the sake of the party, she needs to gracefully step aside.
With as much grace as she can and start supporting Obama.
She fought the good fight, now it's time to exit and stop wasting money on a campaign she can't win.
Hillary Clinton is best qualified to beat John McCain and correct the ills that permeate this nation and lead this country to our former glory.
Keep voting for Clinton
I just cannot vote for Obama
Hillary has almost no chance and has damaged the democratic party with her negative comments and ads. She should drop out the sooner the better.
stay in there till the last dogs dead
i'm foh hillary, shes best for for the job
quit hounding her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She is not presidential material and has no experience in global affairs. Only knows old
Washington politics. Not a creative thinker.
Hillary Clinton is the only one who can beat McCain !
Her husband efficiently balanced the budget, she will also. So fear an October surprize: his VP sellection? Gov. Richardson, a loser choice.
This fun to watch, keep the battle going, helps keep money spent now!
It really doesn't matter. Once again the D's have come up with two unelectable candidates. Either will be toast in November.
She made a valiant attempt, but it is time to go. She should go back to the Senate and take over as Majority Leader.
As her campaign grows more futile, she becomes more and more combative and ugly. Time to quit.
The situation is getting ridiculous. I feel pity for her. She seems obsessed.
We need to get this party united behind one great candidate. Let's stop picking on ourselves.
I wouldn't care if Hillary and Obama both dropped out of the race, human or otherwise.
I support Hillary it but appears the numbers are against her. Hillary needs to see the light and Obama to realize Hillary will guarantee his election
She should have dropped out long ago.
No way, Jose.If all votes are counted Hillary will win. We don't want to be short-changed or have a quick-change artist. We need Hillary.
It's time for Democrats to avoid attacks on each other, and to concentrate on exposing what can be expected from a continuation of the Bush policies.
We need to rally around our nominee now and focus on beating John McCain in November.
As much as I want her as our nominee, I don't think she is going to win. I believe our party needs to come together now or we may lose in November.
This is a hard one, but Obama seems destined. I just hope he can beat whiney McCain. An Obama-Hillary ticket might ensure that.
Enough of this we need one candidate
Sadly, she should so that the dems can begin campaigning to win the White House in November.
It's over, and she needs to face it.
I still think she is more trustworthy than Obama. I'll vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. A vote for McCain is more of the same.
We have much work to do to unify the party and focus our energy on McCain and the General Election.
don't know what she expects to gain by staying, the contest is over. rush's dittoheads have propped her up lately but won't be there in november.
She's doing too much harm, seeming self-righteous, but injecting nastiness and divisiveness into this campaign.
She should drop out for the good of the party, although I doubt if that concerns her. She's entitled to the presidency, dammit! Bill promised her.
She is too polarizing to win in Nov. Obama has a much better chance in the general election. Waiting until August only benefits the Republican party.
Let them fight it out at the convention.
It's history in the making. A woman president and
a Democrat too boot. WOW
Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, hey hey hey, goodbye
But that would require her to care about someone other than herself.
Both are needed down to the wire. They may yet realize they need to give specifics and the cost of their platforms so Democrats have a real choice.
If she is honest about her desire to serve her party and nation, now is the time for her to say she and her supporters fought the good fight.
I want a woman in the White House. I continue to support her.
It is time to put things back together for the general election.
YES. YES. YES! She's destroying our Party and alienating Independents who are willing to vote for Obama.
I don't think she will, but I would very much appreciate it.
Vice President is not a bad thing. Look at Cheney -- he's been running the country for the past seven years.
She is better than Obama,she has more experiance than him and is better qualified for the job of running this country and she believes in GOD.........
Hell no! Her victories have come in big states we need to win. Obama wins only in small states or caucuses. Hillary is better candidate.
she only divides the party and helps the republicans. that is why russ limbaugh is supporting her.
Unless she can get committed super-delegates to reverse themselves, the result is a mathematical certainty.
Continue until she wins the White House!
I don't like Obama. In fact I can't even imagine us having a black President nor a black family in the White House. It isn't that I am prejudice.
It has been close , it will continue to be close, which can impact policy decisions and choices at the convention. we deserve a complete process.
She is a former Republican and a waffler.
This needs to be done in a manner that facilitates the unification of the Democratic part.
NO, HELL NO!
She should concede but be proud of what she accomplished. Obama should pick her as his running mate; Obama/Clinton ticket would be unstoppable.
Hell, no, she shouldn't go.
This should be a mute questions ~ she should have already dropped out.
I have been a Hilary supporter since day one, but things have not gone her way. We need a Democrat to win this election! Barack is our hope.
She is obviously a poor sport and a non team player. Why is she so hell bent on staying in? What is her hidden agenda? I do not trust her.
But it surely is much more interesting with her in there fighting and keeping McCain off the front page.
please. drp out. the majority of democrats want change.
We need Obama to unite the party. Hillary is polarizing - and mean.
There's a deeper agenda here. A Wellesley/Yale grad can easily read the tea leaves and still she remains. Battle for the party, maybe?
The race is too close to call. Should be more fun for the convention delegates to go beyond the 1st ballot.
ABSOLUTELY STAY IN THE RACE!I am so tired that the media and powers-that-be have been trying to push her out from the get-go.
My concern is that alot of Black people voted
for Obama simply because of his color. I think
Hillary should stay in and fight to the end.
Her own political future has more potential if she steps down gracefully now.
Her words and actions in the past weeks have shown her to be a politician of the old school--do anything to stay in office.
Hillary should immediately drop out UNLESS she can make a credible case, with real numbers, that she still has a chance to be nominated.
I applaud Barack & Hillary for engaging many new voters. Finish all 50 states, let the voter's voices be heard, even if she can't win the nomination.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
News Coverage of Bush's Torture and Obama's Bitterness
If you go to the Google "News" page and type in the search words "Bush Torture", you will get about 4032 search results. If you type in the words "Obama bitter" you will get about 7796 search results. This gives you a rough idea of how much play Obama's ill-chosen remarks in San Fransico are getting compared to the fact that the President' of the United States may have personally authorized interrogation methods that are considered by the U.S. military to be torture.
Now, of course, there are a lot of reasons for that. One of them is that both the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign are pushing Obama's remarks. If, for example, you add the word "Clinton" to the search terms "Obama bitter", the search results number 7118, whereas if you add "Clinton" to "Bush torture", you get 548 results. Adding the word "McCain" to the words "Obama bitter" and you get 5536 results. Add the same word to "Bush torture" and you get 544 results. This is a rough way of showing that both McCain and Clinton are going after Obama on his remarks. As any school kid will tell you, being in a fight where two are ganged up on one is no fun and, usually, the one loses the fight.
Apparently Clinton has decided that the way to get the nomination is to run the same kind of campaign against Obama that McCain will run against him in the fall: Push the theme that Obama is not really like "us", whoever "us" happens to be. This is the same theme that was used by Republicans against George McGovern in 1972; Walter Mondale in 1984; Micheal Dukakis in 1988; Al Gore in 2000; and John Kerry in 2004. It obviously works for Republicans. Whether it works for a Democrat to use against another Democrat is open to debate, but we will see.
Of course, one reason why it works is that the media never calls a candidate on its use. The media didn't point out in 2000 and 2004 that good ole' George W. Bush was the product of an upper-class upbringing whose father and friends bailed him out of every problem he ever encountered and who made millions off of Texas baseball by being a president's son.
Clinton might also get away with it. Run the words "Clinton millionaire" and you get about 119 search results. So, apparently, the media isn't going out and reminding voters that Clinton is a very wealthy person.
All of this is not to say that I think that Obama's remarks are not subjects of legitimate political debate. Since Republicans are certainly going to use them in the fall, we might as well see how it plays in the spring. I also happen to think that Bill Clinton's support of NAFTA and his activities with Monica Lewinksy are also legitimate subjects of political debate, and for the same reason. Republicans are going to use them in the fall and we might as well see how they also play in the spring.
The solution for Obama isn't to play defense, it is to play offense. What Obama should do is run a 30 second spot in both Pennslyvania and Indiana that says something like "I don't need to be lectured on elitism by a woman whose husband shipped millions of good jobs to Mexico by supporting NAFTA and who has made millions out of being married to that same man." My guess is that about a week of those ads would go a long way to stopping Clinton's use of his San Fransico remarks.
Now, of course, there are a lot of reasons for that. One of them is that both the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign are pushing Obama's remarks. If, for example, you add the word "Clinton" to the search terms "Obama bitter", the search results number 7118, whereas if you add "Clinton" to "Bush torture", you get 548 results. Adding the word "McCain" to the words "Obama bitter" and you get 5536 results. Add the same word to "Bush torture" and you get 544 results. This is a rough way of showing that both McCain and Clinton are going after Obama on his remarks. As any school kid will tell you, being in a fight where two are ganged up on one is no fun and, usually, the one loses the fight.
Apparently Clinton has decided that the way to get the nomination is to run the same kind of campaign against Obama that McCain will run against him in the fall: Push the theme that Obama is not really like "us", whoever "us" happens to be. This is the same theme that was used by Republicans against George McGovern in 1972; Walter Mondale in 1984; Micheal Dukakis in 1988; Al Gore in 2000; and John Kerry in 2004. It obviously works for Republicans. Whether it works for a Democrat to use against another Democrat is open to debate, but we will see.
Of course, one reason why it works is that the media never calls a candidate on its use. The media didn't point out in 2000 and 2004 that good ole' George W. Bush was the product of an upper-class upbringing whose father and friends bailed him out of every problem he ever encountered and who made millions off of Texas baseball by being a president's son.
Clinton might also get away with it. Run the words "Clinton millionaire" and you get about 119 search results. So, apparently, the media isn't going out and reminding voters that Clinton is a very wealthy person.
All of this is not to say that I think that Obama's remarks are not subjects of legitimate political debate. Since Republicans are certainly going to use them in the fall, we might as well see how it plays in the spring. I also happen to think that Bill Clinton's support of NAFTA and his activities with Monica Lewinksy are also legitimate subjects of political debate, and for the same reason. Republicans are going to use them in the fall and we might as well see how they also play in the spring.
The solution for Obama isn't to play defense, it is to play offense. What Obama should do is run a 30 second spot in both Pennslyvania and Indiana that says something like "I don't need to be lectured on elitism by a woman whose husband shipped millions of good jobs to Mexico by supporting NAFTA and who has made millions out of being married to that same man." My guess is that about a week of those ads would go a long way to stopping Clinton's use of his San Fransico remarks.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
New Ohio SurveyUSA Poll Shows Clinton Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain
SurveyUSA has a new poll out that shows Clinton beating McCain in Ohio while Obama loses to McCain in Ohio. The results make sense when you consider that in the recent Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary, Obama only carried four counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamiliton, and Montgomery. He lost other large counties including Lucas, Lorain, Summit, and Mahoning. This poll is also consistent with other SurveyUSA polls showing that he has also lost ground in Missouri and Kentucky.
While winning Kentucky is not essential for Democrats, winning either Missouri or Ohio would be extremely helpful in winning the electoral college vote this fall. The last two elections have been very close in the electoral college and in both elections Bush carried both states. If Democrats had carried Ohio in either 2000 or 2004, Bush would have lost those elections. If Democrats had carried Missouri in 2000, Bush would have lost that election. If Democrats could carry both states in 2008, it would be impossible for McCain to win the electoral college, assuming that the other states break the way they did in 2000 or 2004.
These polls show that the controversy over Rev. Wright's sermons are hurting Obama with white voters. Whether the damage is permanent is another question. It will be interesting to see if polls taken after Obama's speech in Philadelphia show him bouncing back.
While winning Kentucky is not essential for Democrats, winning either Missouri or Ohio would be extremely helpful in winning the electoral college vote this fall. The last two elections have been very close in the electoral college and in both elections Bush carried both states. If Democrats had carried Ohio in either 2000 or 2004, Bush would have lost those elections. If Democrats had carried Missouri in 2000, Bush would have lost that election. If Democrats could carry both states in 2008, it would be impossible for McCain to win the electoral college, assuming that the other states break the way they did in 2000 or 2004.
These polls show that the controversy over Rev. Wright's sermons are hurting Obama with white voters. Whether the damage is permanent is another question. It will be interesting to see if polls taken after Obama's speech in Philadelphia show him bouncing back.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Rasmussen Reports Running Daily Presidential Primary Tracking Polls
Rasmussen Reports are running daily presidential primary tracking polls and posting them online. The daily poll on the Democratic Presidential primary vote is showing a definite tightening of the race between Clinton and Obama. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wonders if this is the first evidence of the effect that the revelations about the retiring pastor of Barack Obama's church are having on the race.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Media Ignores McCain Not Releasing Tax Returns While Going After Clinton
Media Matters columnist Jamison Foser has a column up about how the media goes after Hillary Clinton for not releasing her tax returns while ignoring that McCain hasn't released his tax returns. Now, this could be just one more example of the double standard that is applied to the Clintons by the national media, or it could reflect the fact that McCain's opponents didn't go after him on this issue during the primaries like Obama went after Clinton.
One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.
Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.
The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.
One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.
Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.
The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist Makes Case for Clinton Being the Stronger Candidate
Jonathon V. Last is a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who has a column called "One Last Thing" in that paper. A reader recently sent us a link to a column in the Sunday, March 9, 2008 paper in which he makes the argument that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate that Democrats can nominate to run against John McCain.
Here is the essense of his argument:
Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).
Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.
By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.
In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House
Of course, his argument assumes that Clinton holds the African-American vote and the vote from younger voters. It may be that an increasingly bitter primary could erode her support among those two voting blocks. Still, the argument is an interesting one and is well worth the time to read it.
Here is the essense of his argument:
Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).
Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.
By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.
In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House
Of course, his argument assumes that Clinton holds the African-American vote and the vote from younger voters. It may be that an increasingly bitter primary could erode her support among those two voting blocks. Still, the argument is an interesting one and is well worth the time to read it.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Are Clinton's Attacks on Obama Destroying Dem's Chances if Obama Wins Nomination?
A friend of ours sent this article that appears on the New Republic's website. Entitled "Go Already", the author, Jonathon Chait, makes the argument that the campaign Clinton is waging against Obama will really hurt the Democrats' chances of winning the White House if he is the nominee.
This is from the article:
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
He makes the argument that if she spends seven weeks attacking him in Pennslyvania, a swing state in the fall, it will hurt his chances of winning that state in November. He raises the question of whether the Republican Party could have carried Florida in 2000 if someone had spent seven weeks attacking Bush that spring. Here is how Chait puts it:
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
A problem that Clinton has is that, in the past, the Clintons have appeared willing to jeopardize Democratic chances of winning elections if it meant that they would win themselves. Robert Reich wrote a recent article for AlterNet in which he laid this tendency right at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Here is how he put it:
I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Like Chait, he also points out the harm such a "scorched earth" policy could cause:
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.
The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
There is a tendency among some Clinton supporters to write off any criticism of her, especially if it is made by men. Reich, however, is a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton and Jonathon Chait is no left-wing crazy. When people like Reich and Chait start suggesting that Clinton's campaign style is doing more harm than good, it is time to listen.
All of this is not to say we believe that Clinton should drop out. She has a right to campaign for President up and until Obama gets enough committed delegates to clinch the nomination. What she doesn't have the right to do is damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning in the fall. This election is too important to some of the most vulnerable members of our society for her to take that approach.
This is from the article:
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
He makes the argument that if she spends seven weeks attacking him in Pennslyvania, a swing state in the fall, it will hurt his chances of winning that state in November. He raises the question of whether the Republican Party could have carried Florida in 2000 if someone had spent seven weeks attacking Bush that spring. Here is how Chait puts it:
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
A problem that Clinton has is that, in the past, the Clintons have appeared willing to jeopardize Democratic chances of winning elections if it meant that they would win themselves. Robert Reich wrote a recent article for AlterNet in which he laid this tendency right at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Here is how he put it:
I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Like Chait, he also points out the harm such a "scorched earth" policy could cause:
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.
The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
There is a tendency among some Clinton supporters to write off any criticism of her, especially if it is made by men. Reich, however, is a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton and Jonathon Chait is no left-wing crazy. When people like Reich and Chait start suggesting that Clinton's campaign style is doing more harm than good, it is time to listen.
All of this is not to say we believe that Clinton should drop out. She has a right to campaign for President up and until Obama gets enough committed delegates to clinch the nomination. What she doesn't have the right to do is damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning in the fall. This election is too important to some of the most vulnerable members of our society for her to take that approach.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Clinton Wins Medina County in Primary
Hillary Clinton took Medina County last night, winning the country by a margin of 19845 to 12319. In percentage terms, as between Obama and Clinton, Clinton won the county by a margin of 61.6% to 38.4%.
Medina County is in two Congressional districts, the 13th and the 16th. The 13th district part of Medina County is composed of Hinckley, Brunswick, Brunswick Hills Township, and Liverpool Township. Clinton won that part of the county by a vote of 64.61% to 33.95%. She won the 16th district part of the county by a margin of 58.59% to 39.72%. (The Medina County Board of Elections counted votes for John Edwards in both parts of the county.)
This is a pretty impressive win for Clinton in Medina County considering that in two presidential campaigns her husband never carried Medina County.
Medina County is in two Congressional districts, the 13th and the 16th. The 13th district part of Medina County is composed of Hinckley, Brunswick, Brunswick Hills Township, and Liverpool Township. Clinton won that part of the county by a vote of 64.61% to 33.95%. She won the 16th district part of the county by a margin of 58.59% to 39.72%. (The Medina County Board of Elections counted votes for John Edwards in both parts of the county.)
This is a pretty impressive win for Clinton in Medina County considering that in two presidential campaigns her husband never carried Medina County.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Medina Dem Explains Why He Supports Hillary Clinton
It is now 12 hours until the polls open in Ohio , and have I made up my mind who I will vote for in the primary? Finally, yes. Also, I am grateful that at long last the people of Ohio will play a role in choosing the nominees for a change!
I will take a Democratic ballot for President, and this choice is easy. Either Dem will end the war in Iraq : how fast is an unknown, but, McCain would keep us there “100 years, if necessary.” Now, this is to be taken seriously, as we now will begin the 6th year of occupation in a foreign land. While one can find good qualities about John Mc, I am further upset in the matter of his whoring (as a classmate on the east coast describes his behavior of the past 4+ years) for the Bush adm. for more than that period. I believe they bought him off without $$ to keep him out of the race in ’04. Further, the fact that he spent a long 6+ years as a POW does NOT qualify him, nor aid him, in this quest for the presidency.
I am ignoring Huckleberry, who doesn’t appear to even believe in gravity. Ron Paul? I agree with his Iraq policy, and other military policies which, simply stated, (as Paul simply states everything) involved uninvolving ourselves militarily in near every other foreign country, some of his finance positions, and some of his positions on making the federal government smaller, but most of his positions are so simplistic that he must be dismissed out-of-hand.
Positions of Obama and Clinton are similar, other than the fact that Obama has promised everyone a little bit of everything, and he cannot deliver all that he has stated even if Congress gave him the green light, which they will not. Little bears arguing about in that matter, so it will come down to a difference of experience or a fresh approach: Does a new face such as Obama overcome his lack of experience? Does ‘same old’ politics make for a “same old” policy? There have been many “fresh faces” in DC, if you mean outside the beltway, which Obama is only part way out there. He will have the people behind him, clamoring for change. And Clinton ’s partisanship, pettiness couple with anger, stubbornness and lack of compromise could derail anything good should she be elected.
Obama has the momentum, as I write this. And, we know that momentum and timing can be everything in politics. And, as the campaign goes on, he becomes more and more knowledgeable about the world at large, not to mention the good old USA . But, as I age more, I know in my heart that experience is the deciding factor. And, believe me, there will be change.
I will cast my ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bryan Adams
I will take a Democratic ballot for President, and this choice is easy. Either Dem will end the war in Iraq : how fast is an unknown, but, McCain would keep us there “100 years, if necessary.” Now, this is to be taken seriously, as we now will begin the 6th year of occupation in a foreign land. While one can find good qualities about John Mc, I am further upset in the matter of his whoring (as a classmate on the east coast describes his behavior of the past 4+ years) for the Bush adm. for more than that period. I believe they bought him off without $$ to keep him out of the race in ’04. Further, the fact that he spent a long 6+ years as a POW does NOT qualify him, nor aid him, in this quest for the presidency.
I am ignoring Huckleberry, who doesn’t appear to even believe in gravity. Ron Paul? I agree with his Iraq policy, and other military policies which, simply stated, (as Paul simply states everything) involved uninvolving ourselves militarily in near every other foreign country, some of his finance positions, and some of his positions on making the federal government smaller, but most of his positions are so simplistic that he must be dismissed out-of-hand.
Positions of Obama and Clinton are similar, other than the fact that Obama has promised everyone a little bit of everything, and he cannot deliver all that he has stated even if Congress gave him the green light, which they will not. Little bears arguing about in that matter, so it will come down to a difference of experience or a fresh approach: Does a new face such as Obama overcome his lack of experience? Does ‘same old’ politics make for a “same old” policy? There have been many “fresh faces” in DC, if you mean outside the beltway, which Obama is only part way out there. He will have the people behind him, clamoring for change. And Clinton ’s partisanship, pettiness couple with anger, stubbornness and lack of compromise could derail anything good should she be elected.
Obama has the momentum, as I write this. And, we know that momentum and timing can be everything in politics. And, as the campaign goes on, he becomes more and more knowledgeable about the world at large, not to mention the good old USA . But, as I age more, I know in my heart that experience is the deciding factor. And, believe me, there will be change.
I will cast my ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bryan Adams
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Superdelegates Switching to Obama?
The AP is reporting that the so-called "superdelegates" are beginning to move toward Obama as he racks up win after win in the primaries and caucuses. This is from the AP story:
The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters — straight to Barack Obama.
In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.
The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.
We posted a blog entry in the past in which we advocated that the superdelegates should vote the way their state or district, depending on what kind of superdelegate they are, votes. We still think that this is a good idea, because it removes these delegates getting caught in the middle of a potentially very nasty intra-party fight.
Unless Clinton starts winning some elections, though, there isn't going to be a nasty intra-party fight because Clinton will be out of the race way before the convention.
The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters — straight to Barack Obama.
In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.
The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.
We posted a blog entry in the past in which we advocated that the superdelegates should vote the way their state or district, depending on what kind of superdelegate they are, votes. We still think that this is a good idea, because it removes these delegates getting caught in the middle of a potentially very nasty intra-party fight.
Unless Clinton starts winning some elections, though, there isn't going to be a nasty intra-party fight because Clinton will be out of the race way before the convention.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Voting for President is an Emotional Act, Not an Intellectual One
Mark Shields, the political pundit who has appeared on CNN and the News Hour, often says that a vote for president is the most emotional vote that Americans make. It is emotional because the president is the only office-holder elected by the whole country. This means that a lot of Americans' hopes, dreams, and aspirations are bound up in their vote for president.
This essential point often seems to be missing from losing Democratic candidates' campaigns. Think of the Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry campaigns, did they strike you as intellectual exercises or emotional exercises? Indeed, one could make the argument that of those three, the Gore campaign was the most emotional, especially after the conventions and the debates when he adopted a more aggressively populist tone. While all three of those campaigns lost, only the Gore campaign managed to win the popular vote.
Contrast all three of those with the two Clinton campaigns. Clinton was able to emotionally connect his ideas and his agenda to voters' concerns. As a result, he became the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to a second term in office.
The fact that a vote for president is an emotional vote is also very well understood by Republicans. The favorite tactic of Republicans is to make the Democratic nominee appear to be slightly "alien" to a majority of voters, especially white middle class voters. The underlying message in most Republican campaigns is that the Democratic nominee is "not one of us." He or she doesn't share our values, our backgrounds, and therefore can't really understand our hopes, desires, and dreams.
Which brings us to the current campaign for the Democratic nomination. If we had to put in one sentence why Obama is now leading Clinton in public opinion polls, it would be that he instinctively understands that voting for president is an emotional act and she does not. This is not to say that she may not intellectually understand that, but that she can't internalize it the way that Obama can.
This is why his emotional appeal to voters cannot be discounted in both the nomination battle and in November. Obama, much like Bill Clinton in 1992, is giving voters emotional reasons, most of them positive, to vote for him. Clinton is giving voters intellectual reasons to vote for her.
If you believe, as we do, that the Republicans will run a campaign using negative, exclusionary emotional appeals in 2008, then having a Democratic nominee who can counter with emotional, positive appeals makes a lot of sense. We think that a lot of Democratic voters feel this way and it is one reason why Obama is now leading the polls against both Clinton and McCain.
This essential point often seems to be missing from losing Democratic candidates' campaigns. Think of the Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry campaigns, did they strike you as intellectual exercises or emotional exercises? Indeed, one could make the argument that of those three, the Gore campaign was the most emotional, especially after the conventions and the debates when he adopted a more aggressively populist tone. While all three of those campaigns lost, only the Gore campaign managed to win the popular vote.
Contrast all three of those with the two Clinton campaigns. Clinton was able to emotionally connect his ideas and his agenda to voters' concerns. As a result, he became the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to a second term in office.
The fact that a vote for president is an emotional vote is also very well understood by Republicans. The favorite tactic of Republicans is to make the Democratic nominee appear to be slightly "alien" to a majority of voters, especially white middle class voters. The underlying message in most Republican campaigns is that the Democratic nominee is "not one of us." He or she doesn't share our values, our backgrounds, and therefore can't really understand our hopes, desires, and dreams.
Which brings us to the current campaign for the Democratic nomination. If we had to put in one sentence why Obama is now leading Clinton in public opinion polls, it would be that he instinctively understands that voting for president is an emotional act and she does not. This is not to say that she may not intellectually understand that, but that she can't internalize it the way that Obama can.
This is why his emotional appeal to voters cannot be discounted in both the nomination battle and in November. Obama, much like Bill Clinton in 1992, is giving voters emotional reasons, most of them positive, to vote for him. Clinton is giving voters intellectual reasons to vote for her.
If you believe, as we do, that the Republicans will run a campaign using negative, exclusionary emotional appeals in 2008, then having a Democratic nominee who can counter with emotional, positive appeals makes a lot of sense. We think that a lot of Democratic voters feel this way and it is one reason why Obama is now leading the polls against both Clinton and McCain.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Obama Supporters Can Dish It Out, But Can They Take It?
The Obama campaign has put out a mailer against Clinton that uses the same theme as the "Harry and Louise" ads of the 1990s. According to Senator Ted Kennedy, the Obama piece is not negative.
Now Clinton has a mailer out attacking Obama's health care plan. According to Ted Kennedy, that mailer is "negative." So what's going on? Is this an example of the Obama camp willing to dish it out, but unable to take it?
Quite frankly, Obama's supporters have displayed a tendency to whine about every little thing that Clinton does that they don't like. No matter what anyone says about Obama's proposals, if it is negative, his online supporters, and now it seems his political supporters, claim that the criticism is unfair.
Apparantly his political opponents, the media, and the rest of the world are not supposed to hold Obama up to the same standard as mere mortals. We are all supposed to recognize his inherent nobility and give him the red carpet treatment on his road to the Democratic nomination, and, then the presidency.
Well, unfortunately, the GOP doesn't play that way. His supporters better get ready for a down and dirty political campaign if he is the Democratic nominee. The GOP won't be about anything other than winning this November. If Republicans have to divide this country along racial lines to preserve their hold on the presidency, they will do it, and they will enjoy doing it.
Now Clinton has a mailer out attacking Obama's health care plan. According to Ted Kennedy, that mailer is "negative." So what's going on? Is this an example of the Obama camp willing to dish it out, but unable to take it?
Quite frankly, Obama's supporters have displayed a tendency to whine about every little thing that Clinton does that they don't like. No matter what anyone says about Obama's proposals, if it is negative, his online supporters, and now it seems his political supporters, claim that the criticism is unfair.
Apparantly his political opponents, the media, and the rest of the world are not supposed to hold Obama up to the same standard as mere mortals. We are all supposed to recognize his inherent nobility and give him the red carpet treatment on his road to the Democratic nomination, and, then the presidency.
Well, unfortunately, the GOP doesn't play that way. His supporters better get ready for a down and dirty political campaign if he is the Democratic nominee. The GOP won't be about anything other than winning this November. If Republicans have to divide this country along racial lines to preserve their hold on the presidency, they will do it, and they will enjoy doing it.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Only Thing Wrong With Obama is Some of His Online Supporters
A friend and I were talking last week and he mentioned that the only thing he didn't like about Obama was his supporters. The level of their bitterness toward the Clintons is just astounding. Here we have a fairly liberal Senator, Clinton, and she is regarded as no better than Bush. Well, here's a reality check for you:
Clinton wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq after being attacked by Bin Laden and his followers;
Clinton wouldn't have vetoed more health insurance coverage for children;
Clinton wouldn't have nominated Roberts and Alito;
Clinton wouldn't have advocated tax cuts for the wealthy;
Clinton wouldn't have run huge deficits to pay for the aforementioned tax cuts;
Clinton wouldn't have authorized torture against American prisoners;
Clinton wouldn't have held an American citizen in detention for over three years before bringing charges against him while denying him access to counsel;
Clinton wouldn't have tried to do away with the Social Security program; and
Clinton wouldn't have supported a Medicare prescription drug benefit that prohibited the government from using its economic muscle to get better prices from drug companies.
Yet, to Obama supporters, Clinton and Bush seem to be one and the same. A lot of Obama's online supporters seem to be taking the position that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination, then they will be just as happy to see McCain win the presidency. A McCain victory, of course, would do nothing to advance the ideas that Obama advocates.
Now, this is not to say that Clinton is perfect. Her support of the Iraq War Resolution was an incredible blunder and, by itself, may very well disqualify her for the presidency. But to act like she is as bad as Bush indicates either an intellectual dishonesty or a total lack of understanding of what the Bush Administration has done to this country.
Clinton wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq after being attacked by Bin Laden and his followers;
Clinton wouldn't have vetoed more health insurance coverage for children;
Clinton wouldn't have nominated Roberts and Alito;
Clinton wouldn't have advocated tax cuts for the wealthy;
Clinton wouldn't have run huge deficits to pay for the aforementioned tax cuts;
Clinton wouldn't have authorized torture against American prisoners;
Clinton wouldn't have held an American citizen in detention for over three years before bringing charges against him while denying him access to counsel;
Clinton wouldn't have tried to do away with the Social Security program; and
Clinton wouldn't have supported a Medicare prescription drug benefit that prohibited the government from using its economic muscle to get better prices from drug companies.
Yet, to Obama supporters, Clinton and Bush seem to be one and the same. A lot of Obama's online supporters seem to be taking the position that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination, then they will be just as happy to see McCain win the presidency. A McCain victory, of course, would do nothing to advance the ideas that Obama advocates.
Now, this is not to say that Clinton is perfect. Her support of the Iraq War Resolution was an incredible blunder and, by itself, may very well disqualify her for the presidency. But to act like she is as bad as Bush indicates either an intellectual dishonesty or a total lack of understanding of what the Bush Administration has done to this country.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Is Obama Attacking Clinton's Health Care Plan with Right-Wing Tactics?
A lot of commentators think so, including Paul Krugman of the New York Times. According to experts, Clinton's health care plan, by calling for mandated coverage, would cover millions more Americans than Obama's plan, which, except for children, does not mandate coverage for all Americans.
This is how Krugman puts it in his February 4th column:
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.
Krugman explains that last comment by later citing in his column to a study by a MIT professor:
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
Further, Obama attacks Clinton's plan using right-wing style language attacking Clinton's plan on the issue of mandates. Krugman compares this to the infamous Harry and Louise ads of the 1990s that were created by the insurance industry:
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
What Krugman worries about is that even if Obama later decides that there should be mandates, his campaign's rhetoric against mandates will be used to defeat such a plan in Congress.
Obama's supporters like to claim that he practices a cleaner, more progressive form of politics, but using right-wing scare tactics against Clinton's health care plan doesn't strike us as particularly progressive.
This is how Krugman puts it in his February 4th column:
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.
Krugman explains that last comment by later citing in his column to a study by a MIT professor:
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
Further, Obama attacks Clinton's plan using right-wing style language attacking Clinton's plan on the issue of mandates. Krugman compares this to the infamous Harry and Louise ads of the 1990s that were created by the insurance industry:
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
What Krugman worries about is that even if Obama later decides that there should be mandates, his campaign's rhetoric against mandates will be used to defeat such a plan in Congress.
Obama's supporters like to claim that he practices a cleaner, more progressive form of politics, but using right-wing scare tactics against Clinton's health care plan doesn't strike us as particularly progressive.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Clinton, not Obama, Carries the Scars of the Sixties
Hillary Clinton was born in 1947, Barack Obama was born in 1961. This means that when she gave the commencement address at Wellsley College in 1969, he was around seven years old. More importantly, it means that he missed being a part of the sixties, and he missed all the conflicts that came with the sixties.
Hillary Clinton has been on the right's radar ever since her Wellsley, which landed her on the cover of Life magazine. She followed that up with being on the Democratic legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee which voted out articles of impeachment for President Nixon. Oh, and by the way, she went to Texas in 1972 and worked for McGovern's campaign against Nixon.
She was involved in the anti-war movement and the women's movement, both of which led to deep divisions among Americans. She has been caricatured by the right wing for over three decades, which really intensified when she became first lady. Conservatives hate her, and most have no idea why, they just know they can't stand her.
Barack Obama missed all that because when he was 18, it was already 1979, and the passions of the sixties were ebbing. Indeed, with the ascendacy of Reagan and the new Republican right, liberals were constantly on the defensive. This means that the great movements of the sixties were replaced with activities like community organizing, which, by the way, he did.
One reason why the politics of the nineties was so toxic was that the baby boomers who had violently disagreed over civil rights, the Vietnam War, and women's rights, became leaders in the eighties and nineties. The passions unleashed by those battles continued. It is one reason why the right hated Clinton and the left hates Bush. Not coincidentally, Clinton and Bush were on the opposite sides of most of the cultural battles of the sixties.
Obama has the ability to transcend that divide. This is why Republicans are worried about him. They built the modern conservative movement by using social populism to convince working Americans that liberals were some strange elite who didn't share their values and were attempting to change their America.
That's easy to do with Clinton, who has a long history of articles and activities to draw upon. It is much harder to do with Obama. Most Americans don't really get drawn into politics the way that activists do and the chance to rise above the passions of the sixties may just be irresistible.
Hillary Clinton has been on the right's radar ever since her Wellsley, which landed her on the cover of Life magazine. She followed that up with being on the Democratic legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee which voted out articles of impeachment for President Nixon. Oh, and by the way, she went to Texas in 1972 and worked for McGovern's campaign against Nixon.
She was involved in the anti-war movement and the women's movement, both of which led to deep divisions among Americans. She has been caricatured by the right wing for over three decades, which really intensified when she became first lady. Conservatives hate her, and most have no idea why, they just know they can't stand her.
Barack Obama missed all that because when he was 18, it was already 1979, and the passions of the sixties were ebbing. Indeed, with the ascendacy of Reagan and the new Republican right, liberals were constantly on the defensive. This means that the great movements of the sixties were replaced with activities like community organizing, which, by the way, he did.
One reason why the politics of the nineties was so toxic was that the baby boomers who had violently disagreed over civil rights, the Vietnam War, and women's rights, became leaders in the eighties and nineties. The passions unleashed by those battles continued. It is one reason why the right hated Clinton and the left hates Bush. Not coincidentally, Clinton and Bush were on the opposite sides of most of the cultural battles of the sixties.
Obama has the ability to transcend that divide. This is why Republicans are worried about him. They built the modern conservative movement by using social populism to convince working Americans that liberals were some strange elite who didn't share their values and were attempting to change their America.
That's easy to do with Clinton, who has a long history of articles and activities to draw upon. It is much harder to do with Obama. Most Americans don't really get drawn into politics the way that activists do and the chance to rise above the passions of the sixties may just be irresistible.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
"I'd Vote for a Woman, Just Not Her"
A lot of people have expressed that sentiment either on the Internet, or in articles, or in person. Such people claim that it's not Clinton's gender that bothers them, it is her personality. They don't trust her, think that she is insincere, and are supporting Obama in the 2008 race for the Democratic nomination. The sentiment that Clinton shouldn't be elected is often expressed by Democratic women in their 40s and 50s. Such women seem to assume that there will be an opportunity in the near future to nominate and elect a Democratic woman as president.
They shouldn't be so sure. In 1928, the Democratic Party nominated the first Roman Catholic, Al Smith, for President. He was defeated. It was another 32 years before another Roman Catholic, John F. Kennedy, was nominated and there has not been a Roman Catholic nominated by the Democratic Party or the Republican Party since 1960. This in spite of the fact that Roman Catholics are a highly prized voting block by both political parties.
In 1984 then New York Senator Geraldine Ferraro was selected for Vice-President by Walter Mondale. Now, 20 years later, Hillary Clinton is running for president. That means that two decades have passed since Ferraro was on the ticket and she wasn't chosen by voters but rather by the Presidential Democratic nominee.
Hillary Clinton possess several advantages that most women politicians don't possess. She has great name recognition, can raise money, is Senator from a big state that is home to a lot of big media companies, and has a husband who is a former president. She is the best positioned woman to run for president in the history of the Democratic Party. If she doesn't make it, it will be years, possibly a great many years, before another woman is in such a position.
All that is not to say that women voters who like Obama shouldn't vote for him, or should support Clinton just because she is a woman. What I am saying is that people who support the idea of a woman president, but vote against Clinton, should realize that they might not another opportunity in their lifetimes.
They shouldn't be so sure. In 1928, the Democratic Party nominated the first Roman Catholic, Al Smith, for President. He was defeated. It was another 32 years before another Roman Catholic, John F. Kennedy, was nominated and there has not been a Roman Catholic nominated by the Democratic Party or the Republican Party since 1960. This in spite of the fact that Roman Catholics are a highly prized voting block by both political parties.
In 1984 then New York Senator Geraldine Ferraro was selected for Vice-President by Walter Mondale. Now, 20 years later, Hillary Clinton is running for president. That means that two decades have passed since Ferraro was on the ticket and she wasn't chosen by voters but rather by the Presidential Democratic nominee.
Hillary Clinton possess several advantages that most women politicians don't possess. She has great name recognition, can raise money, is Senator from a big state that is home to a lot of big media companies, and has a husband who is a former president. She is the best positioned woman to run for president in the history of the Democratic Party. If she doesn't make it, it will be years, possibly a great many years, before another woman is in such a position.
All that is not to say that women voters who like Obama shouldn't vote for him, or should support Clinton just because she is a woman. What I am saying is that people who support the idea of a woman president, but vote against Clinton, should realize that they might not another opportunity in their lifetimes.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Washington Post Poll: Obama Best Aganst McCain
The Washington Post has a poll out that shows Clinton and Obama as virtually tied. The graphic for the poll results can be seen here. What's interesting is that while Democrats seem to prefer Clinton on the issues of health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq, Obama matches up better against McCain, who appears to be the likely GOP nominee, than Clinton. Clinton loses to McCain by 49% to 46% while Obama beats McCain by the same margin.
Here are some reasons why we think that Obama does better in the poll against McCain than Clinton:
1. He matches up better with McCain on age;
2. He matches up better with McCain on being able to bring change to Washington; and
3. He matches up better with McCain on the war in Iraq.
McCain will be the oldest person to take office as president if he is sworn in on January 20, 2009. Even better than Kennedy against Nixon in 1960, Obama is a clear difference with McCain on the age issue. Although Kennedy was appreciably younger than Eisnhower, he was very close in age to Nixon. Further, Obama was born on the tail end of the baby boom and, to the extent that there is "boomer fatigue", his candidacy would benefit from that fatigue.
Both Clinton and Obama, by virtue of being female and African-American, are personifications of change. We give the benefit to Obama on that score, however, because, unlike Clinton, he has not been in D.C. politics since 1992. If there is uneasiness at the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, Obama benefits from that uneasiness.
Finally, on the war, Obama was opposed to the war from the start and can probably use McCain's recent comment about not caring if the U.S. is in Iraq for another 100 years more effectively than Clinton. Her trying to have it both ways on the war reminds us of Kerry's infamous line that he was voted against funding for the Iraq War before he voted for it.
Clinton would match up better with McCain on experience and on knowledge of the issues. Clinton would also be a clear contrast with McCain on gender, but that is matched by Obama being a clear contrast with McCain on race. The one big question that no one really knows until we get there is whether Obama can get enough of the white vote, particulary the white male vote, to be competitive with McCain.
If you believe, as we do, that drawing a clear contrast with your opponent is important in political campaigns, then Obama is a better choice.
Here are some reasons why we think that Obama does better in the poll against McCain than Clinton:
1. He matches up better with McCain on age;
2. He matches up better with McCain on being able to bring change to Washington; and
3. He matches up better with McCain on the war in Iraq.
McCain will be the oldest person to take office as president if he is sworn in on January 20, 2009. Even better than Kennedy against Nixon in 1960, Obama is a clear difference with McCain on the age issue. Although Kennedy was appreciably younger than Eisnhower, he was very close in age to Nixon. Further, Obama was born on the tail end of the baby boom and, to the extent that there is "boomer fatigue", his candidacy would benefit from that fatigue.
Both Clinton and Obama, by virtue of being female and African-American, are personifications of change. We give the benefit to Obama on that score, however, because, unlike Clinton, he has not been in D.C. politics since 1992. If there is uneasiness at the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, Obama benefits from that uneasiness.
Finally, on the war, Obama was opposed to the war from the start and can probably use McCain's recent comment about not caring if the U.S. is in Iraq for another 100 years more effectively than Clinton. Her trying to have it both ways on the war reminds us of Kerry's infamous line that he was voted against funding for the Iraq War before he voted for it.
Clinton would match up better with McCain on experience and on knowledge of the issues. Clinton would also be a clear contrast with McCain on gender, but that is matched by Obama being a clear contrast with McCain on race. The one big question that no one really knows until we get there is whether Obama can get enough of the white vote, particulary the white male vote, to be competitive with McCain.
If you believe, as we do, that drawing a clear contrast with your opponent is important in political campaigns, then Obama is a better choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)