0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 18 Nov, 2007 09:46 am
From a blog by Lawrence Lessing (says close to what I feel about Hillary):

"But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don't get this in Democrats generally. I never have, but I especially don't get it after two defeats to the likes of George Bush (ok, one defeat, but let's put that aside for the moment).
Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech.

Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot. Fear only that someone would clearly understand what you believe.

(Think of Kerry denying he supported gay marriage -- and recognize that the same sort of people who thought that would win him support are now inside the control room at ClintonHQ)."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 18 Nov, 2007 10:32 am
From today's Columbus Dispatch (page 4)

http://i5.tinypic.com/6q3x4yp.jpg

Online: Will Clinton be electable in Ohio?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Sun 18 Nov, 2007 08:15 pm
snood wrote:
From a blog by Lawrence Lessing (says close to what I feel about Hillary):

"But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don't get this in Democrats generally. I never have, but I especially don't get it after two defeats to the likes of George Bush (ok, one defeat, but let's put that aside for the moment).
Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech.

Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot. Fear only that someone would clearly understand what you believe.

(Think of Kerry denying he supported gay marriage -- and recognize that the same sort of people who thought that would win him support are now inside the control room at ClintonHQ)."


Snood, are you a latent conservative ready to break free of the shackles of the Democratic Party soon?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 18 Nov, 2007 10:58 pm
okie wrote:
snood wrote:
From a blog by Lawrence Lessing (says close to what I feel about Hillary):

"But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don't get this in Democrats generally. I never have, but I especially don't get it after two defeats to the likes of George Bush (ok, one defeat, but let's put that aside for the moment).
Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech.

Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot. Fear only that someone would clearly understand what you believe.

(Think of Kerry denying he supported gay marriage -- and recognize that the same sort of people who thought that would win him support are now inside the control room at ClintonHQ)."


Snood, are you a latent conservative ready to break free of the shackles of the Democratic Party soon?


Not hardly. Just don't like Hillary.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 07:25 am
snood wrote:
From a blog by Lawrence Lessing (says close to what I feel about Hillary):

"But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don't get this in Democrats generally. [..]
Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech. [..]


But Snood, what I don't get is, how does that observation fit with your support for Obama? I mean, I totally agree with the sentiment here. But if you have enough of all this cautiousness and lack of spirit that the Democrats have been showing, how's Obama better? On what substantive points of policy have the plans he has unfolded been bolder than Hillary's?

I mean - OK, this is how I see it - what I've seen is that Hillary's actually outflanked him on policy sometimes, on health care for example, and that it's Obama who's repeating Republican talking points about the impending "crisis" of Social Security. Even on style, at least Hillary is promising to "turn up the heat" on Republicans, and it's Obama tssk-tssking such talk as needlessly confrontative.

Not trying to needle you, just wondering how that works.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 07:27 am
nimh wrote:
Even on style, at least Hillary is promising to "turn up the heat" on Republicans, and it's Obama tssk-tssking such talk as needlessly confrontative.


When?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 08:11 am
How to Beat Hillary (Next) November

I've seen up close the two Clintons America knows. He's a big smile, hand locked on your arm and lots of charms. "Hey, come down and speak at my library. I'd like to talk some politics with you."

And her? She tends to be, well, hard and brittle. I inherited her West Wing office. Shortly after the 2001 Inauguration, I made a little talk saying I appreciated having the office because it had the only full-length vanity mirror in the West Wing, which gave me a chance to improve my rumpled appearance. The senator from New York confronted me shortly after and pointedly said she hadn't put the mirror there. I hadn't said she did, just that the mirror was there. So a few weeks later, in another talk, I repeated the story about the mirror. And shortly thereafter, the junior senator saw me and, again, without a hint of humor or light in her voice, icily said she'd heard I'd repeated the story of the mirror and she … did … not … put … that mirror in the office.

It is a small but telling story: she is tough, persistent and forgets nothing. Those are some of the reasons she is so formidable as a contender, and why Republicans who think she would be easy to beat are wrong. The Republican presidential nomination is the most fluid and unpredictable contest in decades, but the Democratic nominee is likely to be Hillary. Not without a fight, not without losing early contests (probably Iowa, for starters) and not without bruises and bumps.

And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: "How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?" Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her. For now, that's enough. But when a GOP nominee emerges, he needs to remember no Republican is as well known as Hillary. The Republican has room to grow in the polls as voters get a better sense of who he is and what animates him. Here's what he needs to do.

Plan now to introduce yourself again right after winning the nomination. Don't assume everyone knows you. Many will still not know what you've done in real life. Create a narrative that explains your life and commitments. Every presidential election is about change and the future, not the past. So show them who you are in a way that gives the American people hope, optimism and insight. That's the best antidote to the low approval rates of the Republican president. Those numbers will not help the GOP candidate, just as the even lower approval ratings of the Congress will not help the Democratic standard-bearer.

Say in authentic terms what you believe. The GOP nominee must highlight his core convictions to help people understand who he is and to set up a natural contrast with Clinton, both on style and substance. Don't be afraid to say something controversial. The American people want their president to be authentic. And against a Democrat who calculates almost everything, including her accent and laugh, being seen as someone who says what he believes in a direct way will help.

Tackle issues families care about and Republicans too often shy away from. Jobs, the economy, taxes and spending will be big issues this campaign, but some issues that used to be "go to" ones for Republicans, like crime and welfare, don't have as much salience. Concerns like health care, the cost of college and social mobility will be more important. The Republican nominee needs to be confident in talking about these concerns and credible in laying out how he will address them. Be bold in approach and presentation.

Go after people who aren't traditional Republicans. Aggressively campaign for the votes of America's minorities. Go to their communities, listen and learn, demonstrate your engagement and emphasize how your message can provide hope and access to the American Dream for all. The GOP candidate must ask for the vote in every part of the electorate. He needs to do better among minorities, and be seen as trying.

Be strong on Iraq. Democrats have bet on failure. That's looking to be an increasingly bad wager, given the remarkable progress seen recently in Iraq. If the question is who will get out quicker, the answer is Hillary. The Republican candidate wants to recast the question to: who will lead America to victory in a vital battleground in the War on Terror? There will be contentious fights over funding the troops and over intelligence-gathering right after the parties settle on their candidates. Both battles will help the Republican candidate demonstrate who will be stronger in winning the new struggle of the 21st century.

The conventional wisdom now is that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. In reality, she's eminently beatable. Her contentious history evokes unpleasant memories. She lacks her husband's political gifts and rejects much of the centrism he championed. The health-care fiasco showed her style and ideology. All of which helps explain why, for a front runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history.

While the prospective Republican nominee is talking about her now, the time will come soon when he must spend more time telling his story. By explaining to voters why he deserves to be our next president, he will also make clear why that job should not go to another person named Clinton.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 08:45 am
Get ready, folks. This is an example of what is coming Hillary's way. Actually, it's the "benign" version by which I mean subtle sliming (lesbianism communist with ties to Iran and Satan will be done by others).

Go through it carefully. All negative innuendo through framing her (Bill too but notice how he does bill differently but ties them together as a package of bad stuff) as cold, brittle, calculating, insincere, fragile, whining, covertly traitorous, bitch, etc. "Rhymes with rich" isn't just 'bitch' of course, it's also 'witch'. Consider the gender stereotypes here.

Notice how he says nothing about her policies. She's merely negatives. And notice how he sets that up against a robust littany of his suggested policies (all positive) for the imagined Republican candidate (deceitfully too, ie college education costs...as if he or his imaginary candidate will care or do anything about the problem).

Don't make the mistake of thinking that he is actually using this column to advise Republican candidates. He'll be doing that behind closed doors. This is entirely for public consumption and to direct media chatter and attention.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:25 am
blatham wrote:
Get ready, folks. This is an example of what is coming Hillary's way. Actually, it's the "benign" version by which I mean subtle sliming (lesbianism communist with ties to Iran and Satan will be done by others).

Go through it carefully. All negative innuendo through framing her (Bill too but notice how he does bill differently but ties them together as a package of bad stuff) as cold, brittle, calculating, insincere, fragile, whining, covertly traitorous, bitch, etc. "Rhymes with rich" isn't just 'bitch' of course, it's also 'witch'. Consider the gender stereotypes here.

Notice how he says nothing about her policies. She's merely negatives. And notice how he sets that up against a robust littany of his suggested policies (all positive) for the imagined Republican candidate (deceitfully too, ie college education costs...as if he or his imaginary candidate will care or do anything about the problem).

Don't make the mistake of thinking that he is actually using this column to advise Republican candidates. He'll be doing that behind closed doors. This is entirely for public consumption and to direct media chatter and attention.


Kind of like the love Rudy is getting from the left, eh?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:31 am
McGentrix wrote:


Kind of like the love Rudy is getting from the left, eh?


Probably a waste to say this, but don't mistake opposition between two sides in a contest for either moral or intellectual equivalence.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:41 am
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:


Kind of like the love Rudy is getting from the left, eh?


Probably a waste to say this, but don't mistake opposition between two sides in a contest for either moral or intellectual equivalence.


The Republicans will have a strategy for defeating the Democratic nominee. It may come as a surprise, but the Democrats will also have a strategy for defeating the Republican nominee (not that the Dem's are big on strategy beyond saying nothing more then "We are not Republican's!")

Hillary has many flaws and they will be capitalized on.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:45 am
That is quite so. But it avoids everything important. Unless one assumes that mere partisan loyalty is the totality of what ought to concern us when politicians speak or act.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:53 am
Not sure what you mean. A politician will forward a platform and opponents will attempt to tear it down. You can see it now with the infighting between nominees for the parties. Obama and Clinton obviously have very different platforms and they attack each other on based on past words and deeds.

But, as soon as one of them wins, they will suddenly love each other and will go on the attack of the opposition parties nominee... All for partisan loyalty.

So, Obama, right now, does not believe Hillary can be an effective President. When (if) she wins the nomination, will he suddenly see the light and believe she will be? How can that be? Especially if we don't believe mere partisan loyalty is the totality of what ought to concern us when politicians speak or act?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:05 am
Karl Rove wrote:
And her? She tends to be, well, hard and brittle. I inherited her West Wing office. Shortly after the 2001 Inauguration, I made a little talk saying I appreciated having the office because it had the only full-length vanity mirror in the West Wing, which gave me a chance to improve my rumpled appearance. The senator from New York confronted me shortly after and pointedly said she hadn't put the mirror there. I hadn't said she did, just that the mirror was there. So a few weeks later, in another talk, I repeated the story about the mirror. And shortly thereafter, the junior senator saw me and, again, without a hint of humor or light in her voice, icily said she'd heard I'd repeated the story of the mirror and she … did … not … put … that mirror in the office.

It is a small but telling story: she is tough, persistent and forgets nothing.

Just a quickie post - this excerpt was posted on the TNR blog as well, and got this reaction, which I'll wholeheartedly endorse:

Quote:
myzaguirre said:

It's a telling anecdote for another reason: it's further proof that Karl Rove is a jerk who will say whatever he wants to say in order to mock or criticize his opponents, even when he's been put on notice that his comments aren't factually correct, and he'll play the victim when he's called on his b.s. Passive-aggressive little wuss, he is.


Another commenter, at some more length, gets it too:

Quote:
kabloom123 said:

Please. Can we dispense with the Hillary is "brittle" stuff. Rove is being too clever by half - dare we say Clintonian - in claiming he didn't say [Hillary] installed the mirror. His implication was clearly intended to feed on and stoke certain images of Hillary in the media and the political world. It was no different than the Bush camp trying to stoke images of Gore as an Egghead e.g. he claims to have invented the internet.

Does anyone honestly believe that Rove would have let go a claim by a prominent Democrat such as James Carvelle that [a] bottle of liquour were discovered in Bush's desk [..]. Please....

This isn't about Hillary at all. Its about Rove being Rove. An old dog up to his same old tricks.


And a third one comes with an interesting observation on a minor point:

Quote:
nancyirving said:
Rove is the "persistent" one--he persisted in *repeating* the anecdote even after he'd been informed that its implication was false.

Also note the "full-length vanity mirror." A "vanity" is a dressing-table; a mirror on a dressing-table is *not* full-length--it shows only the top of the body. A full-length mirror is a cheval-glass. A "full-length vanity mirror" is a contradition in terms. But he wanted to get both the words "vanity" and "full-length" in there, just to make sure everybody got the point.


Like Blatham said, expect much more of this kind of nonsense - and expect it no matter who will be the Democratic nominee.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:10 am
sozobe wrote:
nimh wrote:
Even on style, at least Hillary is promising to "turn up the heat" on Republicans, and it's Obama tssk-tssking such talk as needlessly confrontative.


When?

I swear I saw him criticizing her for being overly confrontative when she started doing the "turn up the heat" business, but I havent got a clue where I read it, so no link I'm afraid.

What is it you don't agree with (I'm guessing), though? That Obama criticizes Hillary for being needlessly confrontative, or that he said something specifically about the "turn up the heat" phrase? Because I may not be able to find a link on the latter, but the former seems fairly straightforward.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:29 am
I mostly wanted context. Was it about "not all Republicans are evil"? I'd agree with that. He's certainly been highly critical of Bush -- he's not a "speak no ill" kind of guy, despite how he is often portrayed. I agree (if this was the context in which he said it) that making it just plain Democrat vs. Republican isn't necessary and can be counterproductive. You can criticize specific Republicans, or specific policies (which, again, he does), without criticizing the whole group.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:40 am
Main point there -- your emphasis seems to be that he was tssking about confrontation. I don't think that's what it was, if it happened. He has repeatedly shown that he is perfectly willing to be confrontational -- when necessary. I agree that belligerence for its own sake isn't a good idea, and is a lot of what's wrong with Bush's administration. Be confrontational when necessary -- but don't make it the default mode.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:46 am
Lighten up Bernie. The article was not about her past or policy proposals, but rather about how to beat her in a political context. The story about her persistent response to the mirror remark ("I did not put that mirror in my office") wad oddly evocative of Bill's famous words as the Lewinski story began to unfold. However, most of the text was advice to today's Republican candidates Hardly the kind of stuff to merit the somewhat paranoid musings put forward in your post.

I was disappointed that you didn't react to my comments on the Krugman quote you (or someone) posted on a previous page. That was really strident, overwrought and evocative of serious zealotry.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 11:42 am
More info on the staged and stacked debate:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-plants-questions-to-protect-hillary.html


Keep digging out there guys, my suspicion is the questions were okayed by Hillary ahead of time too.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 19 Nov, 2007 11:45 am
George wrote-

Quote:
To me they both appear tiresomely similar.


Isn't that exactly what evolution produces as it refines the carapace to a more and more agreeable fit with the environment when under ideal conditions for the best adapted form of it.

For their to be an interesting disparity one might expect their te be important difficulties remaining to be solved.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 06:00:38