1
   

My little politics blog

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 06:53 am
Thanks, nimh and butrflynet, those both look interesting. Read the excerpts but want to read the whole thing(s).


I keep seeing quotes from this blog by Carl Bernstein, here's the whole thing:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/

Beginning:

Quote:
What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?

The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.

Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don't go right. Which is to say, often.


And

Quote:
In fact, the demotion of Penn -- like the departure of Hillary's acolyte Patty Solis Doyle as campaign manager -- is a confession that, for all her claims of "experience" and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband's presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House. These two failures -- and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances -- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs.


This is what I've seen quoted most often:

Quote:
In A Woman in Charge, I wrote about her ability to evolve, observable especially in the years before she met Bill Clinton and in the Senate: to learn from her mistakes. Events have proven me wrong on that count.

The 2008 Clinton campaign, in fact, has been an exercise in devolution, back to the angry, demonizing, accusatory Hillary Clinton of the worst days of the Clinton presidency, flailing, and furtive, and disingenuous; and, as in the White House years, putting forth programs and ideas worthy of respect and deserving of the kind of substantive debate she claims she wants her race against Barrack Obama to be based upon.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 08:18 am
Pardon me while I borrow your thread space to plop this reference down.

Compassion Forum Transcript
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 08:21 am
sozobe wrote:
This is what I've seen quoted most often:

Quote:
In A Woman in Charge, I wrote about her ability to evolve, observable especially in the years before she met Bill Clinton and in the Senate: to learn from her mistakes. Events have proven me wrong on that count.

The 2008 Clinton campaign, in fact, has been an exercise in devolution, back to the angry, demonizing, accusatory Hillary Clinton of the worst days of the Clinton presidency, flailing, and furtive, and disingenuous; and, as in the White House years, putting forth programs and ideas worthy of respect and deserving of the kind of substantive debate she claims she wants her race against Barrack Obama to be based upon.


That seems to line up pretty closely with the Boston Globe piece I posted in the Clinton '08 thread earlier this morning.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 08:36 am
Ooh, thanks FreeDuck, I've been interested in how that went.

Fishin', yep, saw that piece and appreciated it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 09:15 am
This is a plonk. It belongs on nimh's thread about why Obama stayed at Trinity, but I still want to gather some thoughts about the bi-cultural experience (deaf/ hearing, black/white) and tie it in. Very much along the lines of where I was going, but from a more authoritative voice re: the black experience (Jeh Johnson, in a letter written to Lanny Davis after Davis' Op-Ed).

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/13/lanny-davis-civil-dialogue-on-the-issue-of-reverend-wright/#more-641
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 03:02 am
Interesting article. Do you think the premise is valid? New guys win because they have to learn the rules from scratch and don't rely on what the rules used to be to formulate strategy?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20080414/cm_ucrr/hillaryclintonthebigmistake;_ylt=Aqs3oOJaHGRB7VOqVnsLwDQDW7oF

Quote:
HILLARY CLINTON: THE BIG MISTAKE
Mon Apr 14, 6:24 PM ET


LOS ANGELES -- Last Thursday, about a year too late, I read the "2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention." Not a fun read, I must add, which may be the reason Sen. Hillary Clinton, or her people, and most of the press, did not read or understand its 25 dense pages.

Sen. Barack Obama, or his people, obviously studied the thing, and that is the reason he will probably be his party's nominee for president of the United States.

The document, adopted by the Democratic National Committee on Aug. 19, 2006, is filled with the kind of fairness rhetoric the party has been spouting for at least 40 years. Samples:

"State Democratic Parties shall ensure that district lines used in the delegate selection process are not gerrymandered to discriminate against African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans or women."

"Each state affirmative action program shall include outreach provisions to encourage the participation and representation of persons of low and moderate income, and a specific plan to help defray expenses of those delegates otherwise unable to participate in the national convention."

That's nice. More important is the fine print:

"Seventy-five percent (75%) of each state's base delegation shall be elected at the congressional district level or smaller ...

"Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants."

In other words, using terms of political art, the Democrats have rejected "winner-take-all" elections in favor of "proportional representation." The best example of that is what happened in Texas: Clinton won 50.9 percent of the overall vote to 47.4 percent for Obama. But because of the way the votes were divided by counties, Obama won 99 delegates to 94 for Clinton.

Understanding the rule, the Obama campaign campaigned everywhere, in primary elections and caucuses in even the smallest states. Two weeks before the Delaware election, polls showed Clinton ahead by 10 percent or more. Obama campaigned there, Clinton did not, and he won the state by 2 percentage points. More important, he won nine delegates to her six.

The same thing happened in small state after state, which is why Obama is ahead in the delegate count. If states still had winner-take-all primaries, Clinton, who won more votes in California, New York and Texas, would have easily won the nomination. But again, she had not read the rules and Obama had.

There was a myth at the center of the Clinton campaign, the idea that she and her husband, the former president, had a nationwide organization ready to knock on every door in America. Not so. The Clintons had many friends, but no organization. Bill and Hillary were always top-down, media candidates. Obama's manager, David Axelrod, a former Chicago Tribune reporter, did build a national knock-on-any-door campaign, an old-fashioned Chicago-style campaign -- and it worked.

It is hard not to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. She expected her campaign to be a walkover, and there she was like a deer in the headlights when the Obama Express came roaring down the tracks. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is not a new thing in presidential politics. In my experience, the new guys, new managers, usually win. And Axelrod was the new guy, as Karl Rove was the new guy in 2000, and before him there was James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, Lee Atwater, Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell.

The new guys win because they have to learn the rules from scratch. The old guys play by old rules, run the same old campaigns that worked before -- and it is often too late for them when they realize the game has changed. Poor Hillary and her strategist Mark Penn just didn't get it.


There is a valid point about newbies having studied the rules with a fresh perspective and strategy to win, but I think it negates the fact that newbies can't win just by strategy. They have to have some timely substance that attracts supporters to their strategy.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 06:42 am
Butrflynet wrote:
Interesting article. Do you think the premise is valid? New guys win because they have to learn the rules from scratch and don't rely on what the rules used to be to formulate strategy?


I find the argument hard to buy into. There are several people on Hillary's campaign staff that were involved in writing those rules. Did they all forget what they had helped write?

A much simpler explanation is that the Clinton campaign just expected that they would roll through Super Tuesday and have a commanding lead the day after.

I think she over-estimated her popular appeal and underestimated Obama's. I'd bet that when the campaigns were first gearing up Obama wasn't anywhere near the top of her concerns. I think she was concerned with (and focused on) Edwards, Biden and Dodd and just assumed Obama would be taken care of as a matter of course. So she geared her campaign to compete against Edwards and Co. and then found her campaign in a tizzy when people voted for Obama and the others fell to the wayside.

A miscalculation of who the final 2 or 3 in the race would be explains more of her campaign strategy (and the issues with it) than some misunderstanding of the rules.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 07:17 am
Totally agree with fishin's analysis, there...

I do think there was also miscalculation in general -- just not careful campaigning, no matter who the opponent ended up being. But I agree that Obama wasn't even really on their radar until too late.

For that matter, I don't think McCain was. The Hillary campaign planned on beating Edwards and then taking on Giuliani in a general election. And didn't shift very well once the situation changed.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 03:21 pm
Just came across this -- watched it without captions so not totally sure of content but was entertaining!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Lqm5emQl4

Made me seriously miss pick-up b-ball though...

(Let me know if there is any reference to a crazy woman in Columbus who spoke in b-ball analogies... ;-))
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 06:10 pm
Quote:
I think she over-estimated her popular appeal and underestimated Obama's. I'd bet that when the campaigns were first gearing up Obama wasn't anywhere near the top of her concerns.


I recall reading, before Obama had decided to run, one of Clinton's advisors (can't remember who, a woman) saying that it looked like Clinton had it sewn up...unless Obama decided to run and then "all bets are off".
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 07:00 pm
Theda Skocpol affirms that Hillary made the "screw 'em" comment and adds some context/ depth:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/17/what_she_said/
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 11:26 am
Very long article...

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-brand-called-obama.html?page=0%2C7


Excerpts:


Quote:

...

The fact that Obama has taken what we thought we knew about politics and turned it into a different game for a different generation is no longer news. What has hardly been examined is the degree to which his success indicates a seismic shift on the business horizon as well. Politics, after all, is about marketing -- about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume. The promotion of the brand called Obama is a case study of where the American marketplace -- and, potentially, the global one -- is moving. His openness to the way consumers today communicate with one another, his recognition of their desire for authentic "products," and his understanding of the need for a new global image -- all are valuable signals for marketers everywhere.

"Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand," says Keith Reinhard, chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide. "New, different, and attractive. That's as good as it gets." Obama has his greatest strength among the young, roughly 18 to 29 years old, that advertisers covet, the cohort known as millennials -- who will outnumber the baby boomers by 2010. They are black, white, yellow, and various shades of brown, but what they share -- new media, online social networks, a distaste for top-down sales pitches -- connects them more than traditional barriers, such as ethnicity, divide them.

Obama has risen above what he calls a "funny" name, an unusual life story, and -- contrary to the now popular (and mistaken) notion that nobody sees race anymore -- a persistent racial divide to become a reflection of what America will be: a postboomer society. He has moved beyond traditional identity politics. And whether it's now or a decade from now, the new reality he reflects will eventually win out. Any forward-thinking business would be wise to examine the implications of his ascent, from marketing strategies and leadership styles to the future of the American workplace.


...

Quote:
Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist, has long considered himself a political independent. An Obama encounter at a campaign event inspired him to take up arms for the Democratic candidate. But he can't quite explain why. "I'm still struggling to articulate what it is about him beyond the issues that I care about," he says. Newmark then fumbles his way to this realization: "I see him as a leader rather than a boss." A leader, he notes, gets people to do things on their own, through inspiration, respect, and trust. "A boss can order you to do things, sure, but you do them because it's part of the contract."

What Newmark is describing is more complicated -- and more modern -- than it might appear. There have long been leaders who are bosses, and bosses who are leaders. Having a vision and inspiring or instructing others to follow that vision have long been hallmarks of business and politics. But Obama epitomizes a new way of thinking called "adaptive leadership," which is now being taught at Harvard's Kennedy School, among other places. This approach, as Stephen Bouwhuis recently wrote in The Australian Journal of Public Administration, is effective in handling problems that necessitate "a shift ... in ways of thinking across a community." While a visionary puts forth a specific plan to be implemented, an adaptive leader works with constituents to devise one together.

Obama has tapped into this adaptive-leadership vein by inviting voters in with his "Yes we can" slogan, then reinforcing it with attacks on the complacency and withdrawal from politics of many Americans, particularly the young. "Change will not come if we wait for some other person," he said on Super Tuesday, "or if we wait for some other time... We are the hope of the future." Marty Linsky, professor at the Kennedy School and cofounder of Cambridge Leadership Associates, is among those who've taken note of Obama's adaptive style. "Obama often proposes process plans that involve a trust in the community at large," Linsky says. The potential ramifications for business leadership are enormous. The cult of the imperial chief executive officer still reigns in most C-suites and boardrooms. But winning tomorrow's talent -- and tomorrow's consumer -- may require a dramatically different approach.

And not only to reach the young: Dennis Edwards, a white 50-year-old small-businessman from South Carolina, told me that his main issue in the presidential campaign is health care. "I know that no candidate can push their plan completely through," he says. "That's not cynicism, that's reality. But I believe Obama can get people to the table to talk. I think he'll listen to other points of view. I also believe he can move it further in the right direction than anyone else."



"Obama often proposes process plans that involve a trust in the community at large."

Finally! Someone has articulated what I have struggled to convey to people about Obama's strategy and philosophy in one short sentence.



...

Quote:
"The coloration of society is changing." Harriet Michel is president of the National Minority Supplier Council, which helps corporations find qualified Asian, African American, Hispanic, and Native American vendors. When the organization started 35 years ago, Michel continues, "people felt forced to check boxes instead of thinking about how new suppliers might help their businesses." Today, census data make clear that a changing population means new markets and new opportunities. "The 'right thing to do' is tired, quite frankly. It's business," she says. "This is economics. Now when you're talking about imperatives, they accrue to the bottom line of the company."

Michel is an Obama supporter. "The success of his candidacy indicates that we have moved a bit beyond our tortured past as it relates to race," she says. "If he's credentialed enough and experienced enough to be elected by all the people, it will make a difference to how everyone views America and Americans."

The fact that a black man may soon be a major-party nominee, or even sit in the Oval Office, has far-reaching implications for a business community that's still overwhelmingly white at the top. As of 2005, one third of the Fortune 500 had no African-American directors; of 5,572 available seats, 449 were held by 245 black board members. Of course, executive ranks are also overwhelmingly male -- 85% of Fortune 500 boards -- making Clinton's rise, too, a challenge to the business status quo.



...

Quote:
Should Obama become president, his leadership style -- not to mention his brown skin and African name -- could give a new face to the image America telegraphs to the rest of the world. "It's already made a difference that a minority could rise this far through the democratic process," asserts Harvard's Quelch.
That brand U.S.A. has suffered in recent years is indisputable. According to the Pew Charitable Trust Global Attitudes Survey, updated in the spring of 2007, the country's favorable ratings have declined over the past five years in 26 of 33 countries -- including most of our European allies -- and are particularly negative in the Middle East. A BBC International poll from 2007 is even more dismaying: A survey of 26,000 people in 25 countries shows that three out of four disapprove of how the United States is dealing with Iraq, Guantanamo, global warming, Iran, and North Korea.

"It's a constant discussion point in international business," says Keith Reinhard, whose DDB Worldwide has offices in 99 countries and has been the steward of such premier global brands as Hasbro and Anheuser-Busch. "We're seen as culturally insensitive on a personal level, and on a corporate brand level," he says. Determined to do something about it, Reinhard dipped into his own pocket in 2002 and started Business for Diplomatic Action, a coalition of marketing, political science, and media professionals aimed at improving the standing of America in the world through business outreach. (He has scaled back his work at DDB to work for the coalition full time.) After commissioning research and testifying before Congress, Reinhard can distill his advice to brands to one word: Listen. "Everywhere I go, from CEOs to people on the street, I hear the same thing," Reinhard told me as he rushed between conferences in Frankfurt, Germany, and Doha, Qatar. "The U.S. needs to listen to the world."

This is precisely the strategy that Obama professes in international relations: to engage, even with countries that have been viewed as America's enemies -- in much the same way that businesses from McDonald's to ExxonMobil often find themselves engaging in places where regimes are not necessarily to their liking. Obama's strategy is not one that all geopolitical experts agree with, but it is consistent with how American business has conducted itself. It is also consistent with his criticism at home of what he terms "a politics that says it's okay to demonize your political opponents when we should be coming together to solve problems."

Obama's candidacy and its call for change may already be resonating in countries that have lamented U.S. policy but still want to believe in the promise


...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 06:08 pm
A plonk:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml

Camille Paglia can be a bit too-too, but some interesting stuff in there.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 08:48 pm
Interesting unofficial analysis here on fairness in the debates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/debate-analysis-abc-asked_n_97599.html
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 07:16 am
That is interesting, thanks FreeDuck.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:48 am
This is funny. In response to this ad by Hillary, her last in PA:

Quote:
It's the toughest job in the world.
You need to be ready for anything -- especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis.
Harry Truman said it best -- if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Who do you think has what it takes?
I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.


Obama's campaign comes back with:

Quote:
The Obama campaign weighs in with this quote from Bill Clinton in 2004: "Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."


Videos of both (Hillary's ad, Bill Clinton's speech) here:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/21/926934.aspx
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:50 am
Snicker.

I wonder sometimes about that "I'm very comfortable in the kitchen" line. It's inviting a sexist response.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:35 am
Since Hillary is so comfortable in the kitchen now, I wonder if this would be a good time to request recipes for the latest batch of cookies she's stayed home to bake...
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 12:11 pm
I love these little vinettes of people's reactions to unexpected encounters with him.

Quote:
Senator Obama Stops at Scranton Diner

Posted: April 21, 2008 12:14 PM EDT
Last Updated: April 21, 2008 12:24 PM EDT

(photo)
Senator Obama talks to Scranton High School seniors Joey Daniel, center, and Colin Saltry at the Glider Diner.


By Jon Meyer
Senator Barack Obama spent the night in Scranton after holding a rally in the city Sunday night and of course he needed breakfast Monday morning.

That meant a last-minute campaign appearance at the Glider Diner and some waffles for breakfast, of course.

A burst of applause erupted at the Glider Diner in Scranton for Barack Obama.

For many it was a surprised reaction. Customers who came to breakfast as usual ran into a man who could soon be president of the United States.

Some students from Scranton High School across the street hope a signature from Obama will excuse their absence from class.

"We saw a motorcade going by, so we said let's check it out. We ran across the street and who but Barack Obama comes in and gives us late passes to class," said senior Colin Saltry.

"I felt really comfortable around him. I told him I wanted to go to school for philosophy. He told me an unexamined life is a life not worth living. It's really cool I got some career advice from Barack Obama," said senior Joey Daniel.

"I think it's going to be pretty close and we're campaigning hard," the senator from Illinois said.

Obama wasn't at the diner to just to meet and greet. Before his busy day of campaigning the guy had to eat so he and Senator Bob Casey had some Glider waffles.

"I happened to have a day off today and we walked in the back to bring my grandson to eat and walked into, to all of the sudden we're right in the middle of all this. So it was wonderful, it was really great," said Tim Earrett of Scranton.

After about 40 minutes at the diner it was back outside and back on the campaign trail for the senator after leaving quite an impression at the Glider.

"I don't want to say it was magical, but it was. It was quite an experience," Saltry added.

From Scranton Senator Obama is off to the Philadelphia suburbs then the Pittsburgh area.

Most polls show him just behind Senator Hillary Clinton and he's trying to gain some last minute momentum before Tuesday's primary election.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 04:30 pm
Probably belongs somewhere but plonking it for now -- on to Indiana!

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1734429,00.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 01:52:49