Obama '08?

November 1, 1993 - Hillary Clinton launches a scathing attack against the insurance industry to counter the highly damaging "Harry and Louise" ads. She accuses the industry of greed and deliberately lying about the reform plan in order to protect its profits. She specifically denounces the ads' claim that the Clinton plan "limits choice." Rarely, if ever, has a First Lady publicly attacked any American industry or industry group -- and certainly never in such strong language and in such a furious manner. Her assault makes front-page newspaper stories, network TV news shows, and calls more attention to HIAA's role and message.

The success of HIAA ads give an immense boost to the organization's fund-raising. In the space of a few weeks, the budget for the campaign expands fivefold from $4 million to $20 million. In the end, HIAA raises and spends about $30 million more than its normal annual operating budget of $20 million -- a grand total of almost $50 million to the lobbying effort. The money HIAA accumulates for the fight pays not only for the Harry and Louise ads but also for a grassroots campaign that dwarfs anything the interest group has ever done. The effort produces more than four hundred fifty thousand contacts with Congress -- phone calls, visits, or letters -almost a thousand to every member of the House and Senate...

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD is a magazine of its word. Three weeks ago, we made the case that the country deserved to be liberated from the Clintons and their brand of politics. We promised to be the first to say something we are not accustomed to saying to the Democratic party--thank you. So, to the Iowa Democrats and independents who caucused in such numbers for Obama and even--this hurts--for Edwards, we say: Thank you. You have begun the job. We are confident your brethren in other states will finish it.

Clinton will undoubtedly be on the attack against Obama in New Hampshire. In December, in Iowa, she forecast that the assaults would begin: "Well, now the fun part starts," she said. "We're going to start drawing a contrast, because I want every Iowan to have accurate information when they make their decisions." Well, over 200,000 Iowans made their decisions--and fewer than 3 in 10 wanted Hillary as their nominee. Now, as we prophesied in an earlier editorial, "The 'fun part' for the rest of us will be watching the bitter infighting among the Clintonistas as the wheels come off Hillary's campaign."

Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost.

It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the ur-reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No.

I was asked this week why the president seems so attractive to the heartland, to what used to be called Middle America. A big question. I found my mind going to this word: normal.

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?"

He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk.

Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.

Clinton, like his wife, is traveling New Hampshire taking questions from voters, and he spoke at the University of New Hampshire in Durham in response to a plea from a woman who said she'd like it "if you and Clinton joined Barack Obama in putting the Republicans on notice" that it was time to "change the game" and end the "meanness" and "manipulation" in politics.

Clinton replied that he liked the idea ?- in theory.

"I think we can change it as long as you have access to information by people who are committed to judging everybody by the same set of rules and following the same set of rules," he said. "According to the most recent media analysis, that's not what's happened so far, but yeah, I think it should be done."

Clinton also let his audience glimpse the scars of his White House years.

"Nobody would like it better than us if you could get that personal vilification out of there, because nobody's been vilified more than we have," he said, after noting that he thought Hillary and McCain could run a respectful campaign. "One of the problems with laying down and turning the other cheek is McCain had one dose of it. They gave it to us for eight years.

"And the fact of the matter is, independent voters think you're polarizing if someone else attacks you, even if that someone is Rush Limbaugh, even if you've been totally exonerated of every single charge ever leveled against you, which Hillary was ?- and some people forgot to tell you about that," he said, jabbing again at the press.

"Nobody would be happier to see all this go away than us. But you can't ask somebody who is at a breathtaking disadvantage in the information coming to the voters to ignore that disadvantage and basically agree to put bullets in their brains," he said.

Is Barack really tomorrow's man? I have my doubts that he really has legs following Iowa.

The Obama Phenomenon

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 5, 2008
Manchester, N.H.

....
He has an incandescent smile, but it's not frozen in place. He seems authentic. When he laughs, you have the feeling it's because something is funny.
.....

That's a nice one, Advocate, thanks.

I can't get a feel for what's going to happen in NH. I was surprised by Iowa (if extremely pleasantly surprised!) and can easily see things going several ways in NH.

Just came here to post this column from Clarence Page, interesting parallels between Obama and Harold Washington:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-080105page-column,1,3741546.column

Blatham, what do you think of this?

Quote:

Clinton, like his wife, is traveling New Hampshire taking questions from voters, and he spoke at the University of New Hampshire in Durham in response to a plea from a woman who said she'd like it "if you and Clinton joined Barack Obama in putting the Republicans on notice" that it was time to "change the game" and end the "meanness" and "manipulation" in politics.

Clinton replied that he liked the idea ?- in theory.

"I think we can change it as long as you have access to information by people who are committed to judging everybody by the same set of rules and following the same set of rules," he said. "According to the most recent media analysis, that's not what's happened so far, but yeah, I think it should be done."

Clinton also let his audience glimpse the scars of his White House years.

"Nobody would like it better than us if you could get that personal vilification out of there, because nobody's been vilified more than we have," he said, after noting that he thought Hillary and McCain could run a respectful campaign. "One of the problems with laying down and turning the other cheek is McCain had one dose of it. They gave it to us for eight years.

"And the fact of the matter is, independent voters think you're polarizing if someone else attacks you, even if that someone is Rush Limbaugh, even if you've been totally exonerated of every single charge ever leveled against you, which Hillary was ?- and some people forgot to tell you about that," he said, jabbing again at the press.

"Nobody would be happier to see all this go away than us. But you can't ask somebody who is at a breathtaking disadvantage in the information coming to the voters to ignore that disadvantage and basically agree to put bullets in their brains," he said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bills_reason_to_go_negative_media_bias.html

So, if they avoid personal vilification, they're killing Hillary's campaign?

This is, again, the willingness to do others (Obama especially, presumably) what they perceive the Republican Machine has done against Hillary because they think that's the only way to win. I disagree, and have serious reservations about what kind of a presidency that would yield.

Going ... positive

Despite signaling a turn toward a strategy of sharper contrasts yesterday -- and a mountain of media chatter about the gloves coming off -- the Clinton campaign isn't planning to air attack ads in New Hampshire, an aide said.

Mark Halperin has the script of a new positive spot.

So far, the most exaggerated storyline of the year has to be how nasty the Clinton campaign will be when the "gloves come off."

The results in Iowa expanded the known universe of what was possible in Democratic Party politics. Some of the party's most brilliant and successful leaders have competed in Iowa (save for Bill Clinton, but I'll be back to him in a minute), and not one of them came close to doing what Barack Obama achieved on Thursday with his win over Hillary Clinton. What everyone thought they knew about Iowa and the caucuses is now irrelevant. Obama changed the game and changed it forever. That is a massive, movement-like accomplishment and what's even more amazing is this: Obama said it was possible and it happened.

The distance between theory and reality is often what crushes movement because what is dreamed for rarely comes to pass. It did in Iowa and that matters not only at a political level, it matters enormously at a psychological level because movements thrive on the intangible emotional synergy of hope, aspirations and dewy-eyed dreaming ?- yes, all those things wise observers of politics have long scorned because they flame out and die so frequently.

What's different about Obama and this moment is the movement has operational tendencies, which is to say it doesn't live off of its good intentions and good vibrations. This movement gets in the trenches and fights it out ?- but on its terms, with its gusto and with its inventive tactical precision.

Never was that on display more clearly than at the 100 Club Dinner here Friday night. This is the New Hampshire Democratic Party's big celebration. It was held in a big dome covering a football field surrounded by a synthetic running track ?- the biggest venue ever for the event.

What you need to understand about the dinner and the venue is this: it was supposed to be a Clinton room.

soz
I'm afraid I don't find what you suggest is in this piece.

Thanks for that post Soz. Man oh man do I remember when Harold Washington was elected Mayor of Chicago. What a time THAT was, so very much like what we're experiencing now with Obama.

Mr. Page is absolutely correct. Inspiration carries just as much weight as perspiration. We were willing to walk over hot coals to cast our vote for Harold and by we, I don't mean only the Black people but progressive Whites, Hispanics and women, all who had been shut out of Chicago politics, more or less, until he came along.

What do you think Bill was saying, with the "bullets in their brains" line?

What disadvantage should not be ignored, and how do you not ignore it?