All Posts Tagged With: "Hillary"

Anyone interested, please post your thoughts as the debate runs as comments to this thread.

I predict Hillary will be aggressive then passive, she’ll start out really negative, try to get Obama to fall into a policy oriented trap, she’ll frame her attacks as self-defense, rather than as an outright attack. If it doesn’t go well with the crowd, she’ll try to pivot to a love fest, but in the end she will question his ability to be commander in chief. I would feel vindicated if she used the line I’ve been predicting, “a commander in chief doesn’t get to vote present.”

Wouldn’t it be great if Obama borrowed Reagan’s line “There you go again” when she gets all ridiculous-distorto-hateful with him. I predict he responds forcefully, without counter attack, and then says the natural “this is the same old politics…turn the page…bring people together instead of tear each other apart…lift America up rather than tear each other down, etc.” Either that, or if he’s really on, he’ll use dismissive humor, like when he called her earlier attacks silly.

Early in the campaign I attended a Hillary Clinton fundraiser where Bill Clinton spoke. President Clinton was on his game that night, and the most important thing he said was “every campaign I ever made about myself, I lost. Every campaign I made about the people, I won.”

This is a telling quote, and a good diagnosis for Hillary’s diseased message. Hillary is at her best when using a populist message, and on several occasions on this blog I’ve highlighted when she started shifting up that message and using populist themes, thinking she was finally going to get it. It’s also telling that the tired talking points she continually reverts to are about her, not about the people: I have 35 years of experience, I am ready to lead from day one, I have made change, etc. Contrast that with Obama’s messages: when ordinary people come together than can do extraordinary things, we can change this country, yes we can, we are the change that we seek, etc.

If anyone in the Agora is considering donating to Obama, if you do, I’ll make a matching donation (within reason) to the DSCC or to a targeted house race. He is almost to 1,000,000 donors. If you haven’t donated yet, I’d encourage you to make even a modest donation. If you’d like to take me up on this, email me at inspired.augur@gmail.com.

Check out this post by Chris at the Outside Report on what Hillary could do to win. He said exactly what I was thinking and planning on writing (minus firing Terry M). I would probably add that she should only go negative in the context of how the Republicans are going to go negative, and she should tread very softly with any messaging that isn’t positive, populist, and optimistic.

Also, the legendary Roger Stone nailed it on how Mark Penn blew it. Stone is becoming one of my favorite political operatives. He has great stories, huge balls, and lots of style. I’d encourage more of you to subscribe to his blog, if for no other reason he’s crazy enough to have a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back.

One of the classiest parodies available online. I almost bought it for a while…

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a curious creature. Her critics claim she is enormously petty, valuing winning as a prize rather than an opportunity. Her supporters struggle to provide concrete reasons why Hillary is their candidate; as often as not, her supporters’ support seems rooted in opposing those who oppose her: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I am struggling with the growing inevitability that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, but slowly, and begrudgingly, liking her more day by day. She exudes a discipline and competency, that stands apart from the field, including Senator Obama, despite his vision and unifying capacity.

The big question between now and February is who will attack her, and how will they attack her. In the mid-90s, Republicans eventually learned that those who attack Hillary Clinton do so at their own peril. Newt was among the first to remember the schoolyard maxim that it’s not nice to hit girls. GOP operatives are figuring this out, and her opponents should pay attention to this article. It discusses, though not in much detail, the strategic decisions on what kind of attacks will work and what attacks go to far and backfire, ala “General Petreas or General Betray us.”

What will work for attacking Hillary? First, whisper campaigns. Think McCain’s black baby, Goldwater’s sanity, etc. Claiming she’s a lesbian isn’t enough. Second, documentaries that use her language, her footage, and purely indisputable records against her. When I was 7 or 8, my Uncle Bud used to grab my hands and make me hit myself. Hitting her with herself is forgivable in a way that outright slander is not, and the GOP will be able to get away with a certain amount of distortion, that’s almost expected, but primary challengers will have to be much more cautious. Third, use humor, mocking and parodying her rather than outright insulting her.

One of the biggest reasons she’s likely to win the general is that she is just too attractive of a target for Republicans. GOP operatives simply will not be able to rein themselves in. The attacks will be beyond hateful, they will be personal, they will bring up scores of Bill Clinton’s infidelities and even attack Chelsea. The GOP attack machine will “cross the line” at least twice, sprinting in straight line all the way around the world to do so. They will only be limited by their imagination, and by the time the realize they went to far, it’ll be too late.

Elizabeth Edwards made headlines yesterday by coming out in support of same-sex marriage, a position that places her at odds with hubby and Democratic “top 3″ candidate John Edwards. Unless Michelle Obama has parted ways with her husband on this issue and Google and I just don’t know about it, this makes Elizabeth the only declared gay marriage supporter among the three Democratic frontrunners and their spouses.

What might this mean for her husband’s campaign? Like blacks and Jews, the gay community can carry considerable sway within the Democratic Party, especially when it manages to coalesce around a single candidate. And with so many LGBT voters feeling jaded about their supposed political champions stopping at civil unions, a courageous pro-gay marriage declaration from one-half of the Edwards duo could move a lot of gay and lesbian voters to the Edwards column.

But how likely is it that Mrs. Edwards will actually become Queen Elizabeth of the gays? There is little distinction between the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards campaigns on LGBT issues—they all seem fairly pro-gay but not particularly inspiring as advocates—and of course there is the likelihood that if nominated, the socially moderate Giuliani will pull a decent number of pro-gay but otherwise moderate-to-conservative voters to his side. After all, Rudy’s already managed to charm Brian’s semi-liberal mother even though he now opposes the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and recently came out against a New Hampshire law legalizing civil unions. (Karen, if Brian and I stay together for the long haul, I hope you’re as excited as I am about our “domestic partnership/alternative lifestyle” ceremony—maybe we can even have a certified witch officiate!) At this point, it’s going to be an uphill battle for any single primary candidate to win over a majority of LGBT voters.

She faces some awfully tough competition. Even though the Clintons are about as aggressively uninspiring as the next mainstream Democratic politician when it comes to their collective record on LGBT issues, they have carefully cultivated a solid relationship with influential gay Democrats, and David “Sassfest” Geffen jumping ship is hardly an indication that Hillary’s gay foundation is in danger of collapsing. Hillary has won the long-term admiration of much of the LGBT community with her credentials as a woman of power. But Elizabeth is nipping at her heels; just look at AmIAnnoying.com, where both women enjoy membership in the category “Fag Hags [Women Loved by Gay Men].” For as long as Clinton and Edwards both remain in the race, gay voters looking for an alpha hag might be hopelessly torn.

But how far can a surrogate go? Elizabeth Edwards is not running; her husband is, and policy positions aside, the whole “straight white male” thing doesn’t resonate very well with LGBT voters. Sorry.

And what about Obama? This is perilously anecdotal, but a super-majority of my gay friends and acquaintances—as the former president of PRIDE, UIUC’s largest LGBT student organization, I do know quite a few—appears to have lined up behind Barack. Just like other voters in my generation, they are inspired by his “new era of politics” message, and in their view, Obama’s seemingly innate ability to “get it” amounts to a total eclipse of Hillary and Johnny E. In terms of tangible position-taking on gay issues, he isn’t running ahead of the pack, but his language on gay rights just seems more modern and thus creates an image that he is more “in touch” with younger gay voters than either of his top two competitors. Personally, I find it aggravating that the younger LGBT generation might be valuing style over substance, but I’m a skeptical curmudgeon, and regardless of my views, I’m well aware that this perception has been spreading.

As for this Rainbow Panther (thanks, Augur), I was largely behind Hillary because I’m easily dazzled by the Clintonistas, but I don’t mess around on gay issues; I favor substance over style any day of the week. If, like Hillary and Bill, Elizabeth has the ear of her husband on critical policy decisions—and I think she does—I am certainly tempted to jump ship and declare my support for Edwards, since gay issues rank so high on my political priorities list. I do know that a lot of politically active gays won’t be satisfied by anything less than marriage, so there is a decent chance that Elizabeth’s speech could shake the LGBT voter bloc up a bit. I feel a bit shaken up myself.